Two Cops, a UFO and an Alligator

reply to post by imitator

So they were mistaken in their identification of the lighting configuration.
They were mistaken in their identification of the size of the craft.
They were confused and incorrect that there was no noise.
The moon, though casting a shadow, didn't provide enough visibility.
The ATC controllers had nothing.
Ellington AFB investigated the report because, theoretically, they themselves knew they had nothing in the area.

If you have to literally dismiss every detail, I think your explanation fails on just about every point. You might as well suggest that they were seeing the flying spaghetti monster. I think that would actually be more plausible

I think this picture says it all...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/396633492ec2.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by imitator

I think this picture says it all...

Or does it?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9315190c4827.png[/atsimg]
The word you're looking for is pareidolia. For an explanation to be considered sound, it requires a substantial number of data points to fit the observation. The lighting configuration, size, lack of noise, lack of confirmation from Elington AFB, etc all make it hard to accept this as anything beyond well ... pareidolia.

reply to post by Kandinsky


What a strange report this case is eh ? I'm not sure what to think about the Gator bite wounds miraculously healing but the sighting report and description of the craft is certainly interesting. It's difficult to say what these officers witnessed but I don't think it could have been a helicopter. The description of the craft and the lights don't match that of a chopper and if the object was 50 yards distance it would have been next to impossible to not hear it. I think it's "case closed" on the Helicopter explanation ! LOL


Here's a few noteworthy items:

1- The Damon, Texas incident supposedly took place at 11pm during the supposed peak time.

"He (Dr Richard F Haines) stated that most sightings occur in the eleventh hour PM"
link - www.abovetopsecret.com...


2- The Exeter, New Hampshire case shares the same date and also involved police officers.
link - en.wikipedia.org...


3- Map of approximate Location - ("2-3 mies south of Damon on Highway 36)
link - files.abovetopsecret.com...


4- The report mentions after the initial incident the officers returned to Damon and then decided to "go back to the area to see if the object was still there". They decided to take the old Damon-west Columbia road which would put them "closer to the area where they first saw the object". Note - (object was only seen again after they got back on Hwy. 36 and returned to the initial sighting location)

Map of possible route taken on return trip -
link - files.abovetopsecret.com...

Click Here to See Damon, Texas on Google map



Great presentation Kandinsky and Thanks for the thread ! S&F

I hope it is OK to post this link from Whitepages.com since it is openly available information on the internet. If not, mods please delete.

www.whitepages.com...

Clute, Tx is close to Brazoria and it could be the reporter you are looking for or a descendent. Description of job says she is a feature writer.

I live about an hour or so from Brazoria. Actually bought a painting in West Columbia a long time ago. Great biker bar & grill in Damon.

reply to post by Xtraeme


You can't be serious lol...

reply to post by easynow

I wouldn't dismiss the chopper, first off the these two cops panicked and ran off with their tails between their legs.

2. They probably couldn't judge distance under the hysteria like behavior they described, their sensory and motor functions where out of wack... thus they drove off 110 mph.

3. I'm guessing non of you ever had the experience of an helicopter popping over your head without notice? Helicopters can be right on top of you before you can hear them... very common...

The most logical explanation is "Two panicked Cops, a Helicopter and an Alligator.

Originally posted by imitator
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

You can't be serious lol...

I can be serious ... Can you?

Perhaps this better makes the point:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6fef2eaaff89.png[/atsimg]

When experiencing a vague or random stimulus the mind looks for a fit. Basically by assuming in advance what something is, you predetermine the outcome. That's why you have to look for other details to see if they confirm or falsify your suspicions. Accepting the reported observations as true, we then look for the best explanation that fits the greatest number of details. As it stands the helicopter theory requires ignoring or discarding all the reported facts. Ergo it's bunkum.

My God Kandy, get down with you're bad self.

Truly a massive, intriguing, and even a little humorous thread. I'm not even finished yet

ATS in it's purity.

reply to post by imitator

I wouldn't dismiss the chopper, first off the these two cops panicked and ran off with their tails between their legs.

There is nothing mentioned in the report that supports your theory so there is no reason to believe it was a helicopter. Sorry bro but I will at least give you credit for trying to find an explanation.

They probably couldn't judge distance under the hysteria like behavior they described, their sensory and motor functions where out of wack... thus they drove off 110 mph.

Your making proclamations and basing your theorys entirely on unfounded assumptions. That's not a very logical way to approach things is it ?

I'm guessing you've never had a close range ufo encounter ? I have and I can tell you their reactions were not unlike what happened to me and I didn't misjudge anything.

I'm guessing non of you ever had the experience of an helicopter popping over your head without notice? Helicopters can be right on top of you before you can hear them... very common...

No it's not very common and you would have to deaf dumb and blind to not know if a Huey helicopter was 50 yards away. Sorry bro but that dog doesn't hunt ! lol

The most logical explanation is "Two panicked Cops, a Helicopter and an Alligator.

The most logical explanation is:

Two Sheriff deputy's saw something they couldn't explain so we don't know what it was.

Ok Xtraeme, lets take the pareidolia route with McCoy’s sketches. You have my Helicopter explanation, a helicopter is not imaginary, but its silhouette is of an imaginary movies style UFO.... That's pareidolia. Much like one see's a face on Mars, the mountain is real and the face is not. A helicopter is real, a movie UFO silhouette is not.... Again That's Pareidolia.

When experiencing a vague or random stimulus the mind looks for a fit.

McCoy’s sketch is not random, its a solid sketch, the combined characteristics of this event match an helicopter. It had lights, it was stationary it moved toward them and became stationary again, the sketch perfectly matches an real object that moves exactly like, a Helicopter!

Your boat doesn't fit the bill to my conclusions. Your grasping at straws, though there's flying fish in that shape too lol.

Basically by assuming in advance what something is, you predetermine the outcome. That's why you have to look for other details to see if they confirm or falsify your suspicions. Accepting the reported observations as true, we then look for the best explanation that fits the greatest number of details.

You can't predetermine the outcome unless you have meet these aliens and took a ride in their UFO. However, we have seen human made aircraft thus can predetermine a reasonable outcome. These guys didn't use sound judgment by observing from a graveyard and then being spooked off, then to think he healed his finger ect. You can't accept their reported action as true because of their irrational behavior, their perception was skewed. The details actually match an helicopter, with it's shape and its flight pattern.

Are you going to believe two panicky cops who had sudden overwhelming fear or are you going believe someone who has sound judgment? The best explanation is an Helicopter.

As it stands the helicopter theory requires ignoring or discarding all the reported facts. Ergo it's bunkum.

As I said, their details perfectly match an helicopter... that's not ignoring their reported facts, it matches their report.

I challenge you to think of something that is human made, matches their sketch and it's flight pattern, plus consider their spooked behavior. I got dibs on a helicopter, someone said blimp... so what else could it be other than a ET UFO?

No it's not very common and you would have to deaf dumb and blind to not know if a Huey helicopter was 50 yards away. Sorry bro but that dog doesn't hunt ! lol

1st I doubt these guys could judge distance in their condition. 2nd I know of several military vets who would disagree with you, plus I've experienced it several times... those choppers flying low and fast can be on you in no time.

Two Sheriff deputy's saw something they couldn't explain so we don't know what it was.

Now that one is very plausible

nvm

Great post, thanks!

S&F

Could this other alleged case of the same night be of relevance?

www.ufoinfo.com...

"Location. Near Des Plaines Illinois
Date: September 3 1965
Time: night
Mrs. M. G. had retired but suddenly found herself awake and driving on a rural asphalt road when she came to a spot where a man was standing on the road, waving a lantern. She stopped, believing there had been an accident, and got out. The man was tall, normal in appearance except for a very high forehead, and was dressed in a white coverall with a metal buckle at the waist. She was led across the grass to an area that was suddenly brightly lighted from an opening door of a large round mass sitting on legs about 100 ft from the road. There were three more cars stopped along the road and the occupants of these were also being escorted into this object. Their abductors were all over 6 ft tall, with very high foreheads, and bald; inside the vessel were two “normal appearing” men, also in white coveralls, one with white hair. He was the only one who spoke during the experience and he did so in a language unknown to the witness. The other “human” looked Italian, and was younger. The four tall occupants each appeared to be in charge of the four abductees and in appearance were identical. The room was filled with electronic equipment and control knobs, and telepathically she was told that she would not recall the incident; the next thing she remembered was being led outside again by her “host,” and being helped into her car. The other three men were likewise being assisted to their cars. Mrs G made a U-turn, and drove straight home, where she went directly to bed. Self-hypnosis indicated that a medical examination had been conducted.

Humcat 1965-46
Source: Fred Merritt for Cufos
Type: G"

reply to post by imitator

What you've written isn't an explanation, it's a dismissal. To have a productive conversation involves accepting certain things as true and then trying to figure out based on those true statements what can be discerned. You've decided nothing is true, and that despite having zero first-hand knowledge about the circumstances or the quality of the men that they were both delusional.

This is hardly rational especially when you consider that the sheriffs contacted Ellington AFB and one of the base officers, Maj. Leach (who theoretically would have known if they launched a chopper), interviewed the men and investigated their claims. He himself attested to their character.

So what you have isn't an argument. It's a dismissal. So there's no productive conversation to be had. To claim that a single sketch looks like a helicopter when none of the other facts fit (visibility was good so where's the rotor? or the landing gear? why were the lights the wrong colors? the lighting was bright enough to illumine the cabin of their car and the ground outside -- who uses a purple search light? doesn't this also necessitate that the object was close by (i.e. several hundred yards)? why was it four times the size of a normal chopper? why was there no noise? what was the blue light that separated from the craft? and so on). Failing to answer these questions, or just outright ignoring them, while still trying to discern what the men saw is to engage in a type of pareidolia. No different than looking at clouds and imagining what you what.

If I had to come up with an explanation. I would say that a hoax is the best explanation. The details, as described, are too far outside the bounds of normal characteristics to be mundane. However listening to the men and taking in the other factors from Maj. Leach's report, I'm willing to accept that they probably saw something that was fairly odd.

You're certainly free to dismiss the whole story, but that isn't necessarily logical it's merely dismissive. Even children can dismiss things. It's not very hard to say, "no" and disagree. If that's your angle. Power to you.

reply to post by Morg234
Thanks for the link, Rosales' HumCat is an interesting resource. '65 was a busy year for sightings and apparent encounters. Fred Meritt was one of the good guys in ufology back then and has his own small archive at CUFOS. If the sheriffs' accounts were truthful, they likely did the right thing by getting the hell out of there. The humanoid encounters are best left to other folk and better to read about than participate in.

reply to post by Xtraeme
Here's a Huey from '65 coming in to land. It's noisy, windy and doesn't look anything like a 200' wide object close-up. Of course, it doesn't rule out the possibility that someone had stolen a state-of-the-art silent Huey, decked it with purple/blue lights and found two blind, deaf guys driving a Ford that idled at 200db...

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Of course, it doesn't rule out the possibility that someone had stolen a state-of-the-art silent Huey, decked it with purple/blue lights and found two blind, deaf guys driving a Ford that idled at 200db...

You might have missed your calling in life K. You should have been a comedian. I haven't laughed this hard in a long time.

Ugh I hate UFO stories that have people running away like little girls. If there are ETs, it's no wonder they haven't made themselves known, people would be far too frightened and panic would ensue. If this story is to be believed, these guys could have gone for a sweet UFO ride, and who knows what else they might have learned, but because of fear they didn't get that opportunity, and maybe ruined that opportunity for me and you.

What you've written isn't an explanation, it's a dismissal. To have a productive conversation involves accepting certain things as true and then trying to figure out based on those true statements what can be discerned. You've decided nothing is true, and that despite having zero first-hand knowledge about the circumstances or the quality of the men that they were both delusional.

Well I guess your intitled to be wrong, what I described is my explaination. It is a dismissal of an UFO encounter based on their circumstances. The quality of men does not matter, they are human and no human is perfect. Yes they where delusional and hysterical based on their behaviour, you can not refute that fact.

This is hardly rational especially when you consider that the sheriffs contacted Ellington AFB and one of the base officers, Maj. Leach (who theoretically would have known if they launched a chopper), interviewed the men and investigated their claims. He himself attested to their character.

If you was to ask Maj Leach to take a ride with these two clowns, I'm sure he would turn them down... And I'm sure the Maj is not going to talk about night training or what ever they do to keep things off the books or from being in the MSM.

So what you have isn't an argument. It's a dismissal. So there's no productive conversation to be had. To claim that a single sketch looks like a helicopter when none of the other facts fit (visibility was good so where's the rotor? or the landing gear? why were the lights the wrong colors? the lighting was bright enough to illumine the cabin of their car and the ground outside -- who uses a purple search light? doesn't this also necessitate that the object was close by (i.e. several hundred yards)? why was it four times the size of a normal chopper? why was there no noise? what was the blue light that separated from the craft? and so on). Failing to answer these questions, or just outright ignoring them, while still trying to discern what the men saw is to engage in a type of pareidolia. No different than looking at clouds and imagining what you what.

The sketch is a shape they saw in the dark, your not going to see the rotor or landing gear, that makes perfect sense in the dark. The light color they saw was the hue as I previously explained above. I'm sure you have seen a house light bulb put out a yellow hue, but the light itself is actually white! My light pole outside is a white light that puts a blue purplish hue....and well, Helicopters do use search lights that do the same thing at great distances. As for the size and distance they simply got it wrong

I answered all of those question over and over, but I guess you want to believe and ignore reality?

You're certainly free to dismiss the whole story, but that isn't necessarily logical it's merely dismissive. Even children can dismiss things. It's not very hard to say, "no" and disagree. If that's your angle. Power to you.

You seem to dismiss the state of things as they appear to be, you rather wish them to be. If you take it in as a whole, it will appear to be a Helicopter and not Santa Claus.

Try to guess what this is:
It flys, it hovers, it has a spot light and it's near a AFB... and based off of their sketch it's in the shape of what?
oh yes it can fly up on you before you know it.... Please answer me this?


You failed my challenge, so i guess i won the debate.... You clowns have only experienced a helicopter on youtube and not in real life, try a real fly by that is low and fast ....

reply to post by imitator

Well I guess your intitled to be wrong, what I described is my explaination. It is a dismissal of an UFO encounter based on their circumstances.

Only a person with a sub-par pathetic argument has to assert their argument as correct rather than simply demonstrating it as true. At least you admit though that what you've written is a dismissal, rather than a legitimate attempt to account for all the facts.

To have a productive conversation involves accepting certain things as true and then trying to figure out based on those true statements what can be discerned. You've decided nothing is true ... So there's no productive conversation to be had.

What part of this didn't you understand?

The quality of men does not matter,

I'm real partial to trusting criminals and conmen over deputies who serve their community day-in and day-out, helping the community keep the peace.

...they are human and no human is perfect.

No disagreement there. Have you ever considered this as applied to yourself? I have.

Yes they where delusional and hysterical based on their behaviour, you can not refute that fact.

Please call a psychologist and ask them, "Are delusion and hysteria the same as panic?" You'll be quickly informed they're not. So it's fairly easy to refute your claim. Or perhaps you want to start redefining words too?

And besides under what circumstances would you as an observer flee from a helicopter, only to shortly after go back and look at it more closely using binoculars? Moreover, after everything's all said and done, contact the Air Force to request feedback. I don't think many people would want to open themselves up to that kind of ridicule without careful consideration, do you?

If you was to ask Maj Leach to take a ride with these two clowns, I'm sure he would turn them down...

There you go again wildly imagining things. Do you have any other fictional details you'd like to add to this story?

The sketch is a shape they saw in the dark, your not going to see the rotor or landing gear, that makes perfect sense in the dark.

With a near full moon and clear visibility this couldn't be further from the truth. Light often refracts into the blades from the beacons. Like this ...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8737ed304d8d.png[/atsimg]

Also let me give you some extra details about the case,

The night of September 3, 1965, was almost perfect in southeastern Texas: no clouds, a clear sky, sparkling stars. A three-quarter, gibbous moon hung about the south-southwest horizon, its light throwing the shadows of trees and buildings onto the ground. ... In subsequent statement to Air Force Maj. Laurence R. Leach, Jr., on September 8, 1965, McCoy described what he saw, 'The bulk of the object was plainly visible at this time and appeared to be triangular-shaped with a bright purple light on the left end and the smaller, less bright, blue light on the right end. The bulk of the object appeared to be dark gray in color with no other distinguishing features. It appeared to be about 200 feet wide and 40-50 feet thick in the middle, tapering off towards both ends. There was no noise or any trail. The bright purple light illuminated the ground directly underneath it and the area in front of it, including the highway and the interior of our patrol car. The tall grass under the object did not appear to be disturbed. There was a bright moon out and it cast a shadow of the object on the ground immediately below it in the grass. (source)

You seem to completely ignore this.

I'm sure you have seen a house light bulb put out a yellow hue, but the light itself is actually white! My light pole outside is a white light that puts a blue purplish hue....and well, Helicopters do use search lights that do the same thing at great distances. As for the size and distance they simply got it wrong.

You will not see a search beam hit the ground on the nearby terrain unless the craft is several hundred yards away. Do you refute that? Or do you know of search beams that can travel miles in distance? Furthermore a search light might take on a small hue change, but not be a particular color. For instance I can have a 100 watt bulb emitting 1600 lumens. Ultimately the gas in the bulb and the glass encasing it will help determine the color temperature. If Sheriffs Goode and McCoy were detecting a change in the hue they would have likely described it as having a white-purple'ish tint not purple (and almost definitely not a strong or "bright purple light"). There's a massive difference. Furthermore the hue wouldn't have transferred to such a degree that the ground appeared purple. This would only happen is if the light source was predominantly emitting a 380–420 nm purple wavelength.

You seem to dismiss the state of things as they appear to be,

Lets get specific. What in particular?

It flys, it hovers, it has a spot light and it's near a AFB... and based off of their sketch it's in the shape of what? oh yes it can fly up on you before you know it.... Please answer me this?

You're attempting to use induction to arrive at a conclusion. Induction is great to come up with a tentative hypothesis. It's not a way to come to a firm conclusion. To make my point imagine if I asked you, "What comes through the atmosphere that leaves a firey trail through the sky?" If meteorites were the only thing you knew that fit this criteria, then that would be your answer. However if you realize that satellites and other space debris fall to earth you'll include those as possibilities too. Making conclusions from incomplete preconceived knowledge is not only foolish, it's wrongheaded. Simply put, all or the majority of the data has to support the hypothesis for it to be considered plausible. A single diagram of a roughly triangular object with a protruding knob is hardly killer evidence, especially when all the other details contradict the helicopter hypothesis.

You failed my challenge, ...

Only because you failed to make an argument. Better luck next time.

This was a cool well detailed post It's cool to know there are people who are willing to share their stories and that people like you can do research on this and bring this back to light.
Great post