UFO News | Articles | Commentary | Editorial - Opinion | Press releases | Radio | Reports | Sightings | Video

     As the publisher/editor of The UFO Chronicles, I'd like to offer a heart-felt "thank you" for those of you who graciously submitted a monetary contribution in support of this site and the work we do here—it is very much appreciated!

I’d also like to acknowledge the fact that the bulk of his month’s (August) donations (so far) originated primarily from academics, of which I personally take great pride in.

Finally, as this the last day of the month, and being mindful that we’re still a little behind in our meager monthly goals for donations, in that vein, let me reiterate the verity that your donations keep this site going and free from advertisements.

To that end, (to quote another great site) if you get something out of The UFO Chronicles, and if you can afford to do so, please give a little back; no amount is to small, and large amounts are humbly welcome.

Click on the donation button below to submit your stipend via PayPal.

Thank You,
Sincerely.
Frank Warren
Editor/Publisher
The UFO Chronicles

Labels: Donations, Thank You

     It came to my attention James Carrion, MUFON’s International Director, who also refers to himself as “Truth Seeker” has submitted a blog on Stan Romanek who I am one of the Independent Investigators for. Hey James! Are you sure you’re not known as “The Smoking Man”? he he (ie. old X-Files) I don’t think James smokes, but after reading his blog on Stan, maybe he should start. Yes I’m a MUFON Field Investigator as well as a MUFON STAR Investigator, but I’m also an Independent UFO Investigator which includes “non” MUFON investigations. For various reasons, some people prefer not to use MUFON, so people like me are available for them and their needs. (Especially after James’s last blog ”feud” with the “Open Minds Forum”.) I guess I’ll be getting pretty busy.

Ok, I love James’s first paragraph in his blog on human behavior as if he is “above it” to observe and manipulate. Here let me quote it:

“Human behavior is normally fascinating to observe but even more so in the context of the UFO phenomenon. I have seen the most rational and scientifically minded individuals suspend their common sense in favor of their desire to believe when confronted with the ambiguity of data from a UFO report.”

Wow, very eloquently written James, but slightly flawed. It’s every UFO Field Investigator’s intention to suspend society’s common sense “brain washing” ideologies to at least allow the possibility or shimmer a light to the notion life could be visiting this planet (whew one breath). One definition of “Common Sense” states:

“Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts”.

The key words here are “judgment” and “perception”. James, it’s your judgment and your perception about Stan Romanek that leads you to your conclusions. Your perception is based on the “Stan” data in which you’ve been introduced to. That’s ok, one’s personal common sense perceptions generally drive one’s personal opinions.

James does bring up a good point involving the the word “fallow” which appears not only in Stan’s Time Line, but also in his sister’s and close friend’s UFO reports submitted to the National UFO Reporting Center’s website. James really didn’t have to go through all this trouble, Stan would have told him. Stan submitted the reports for his sister and friends. No big deal, I’ve submitted reports to MUFON as well as the NURC on behalf of eye witnesses for one reason or the other. Usually, because they either don’t have a computer or they just prefer I do it. I submit them to “enhance” the data base with sightings so we could possibly look for future patterns. Attorneys and accountants submit information all the time on behalf of their clients with the full consent. Stan had full consent of the eye witnesses, all you had to do was ask them.

Now let’s discuss the “controversial” document, the “alleged Air Force memo” which was found in Stan’s mailbox and you acquired without the consent of Stan Romanek. You even stated this yourself, “I subsequently located a copy of the memo from a third party source.” A third party? A third Party? Geeesh… Can you say “Smoking Man”? Again?

James! What the hell! You posted this document through your blog without Stan’s consent? Can you say, “MUFON Board of Directors Meeting?”

Is this standard MUFON Investigative practice? I mean, if the MUFON Investigation manual was changed to accept this protocol, then as a Field Investigator I need to know this. This really concerns me. Even if the document was altered, it’s not ethical for any MUFON investigator especially the head of MUFON to release it without the consent of the witness. Or is it now? You just might have made everyone of your STAR team and Field Investigator’s job, a little harder now (ie: Why should I give you my documents? If you don’t believe me or find a flaw in them, then you’ll just release it to the Internet without my permission!).

I can’t explain why the document has the word “fallow” in it. You’re insinuating Stan is responsible for that document. Well maybe or maybe not. As investigators we find flaws in every investigation we do. Nothing is “cut and dry”. If the eye witness testimonies and hard evidence out weighs the flaws, then “hell” it’s a good case. Stan has a tremendous amount of good evidence, and yes, evidence in which I question too! The problem with Stan’s case is, the eye witness testimonies from individuals who experienced first hand paranormal activity are too many! I mean, a lot!

“Paranormal: Unusual experiences that supposedly lack a scientific explanation, or phenomena alleged to be outside of science’s current ability to explain or measure” (Source: Wikipedia.com)

Yep, you may not agree with me, but I do allow a few inconsistencies in my investigations, if I didn’t, then I wouldn’t have any investigations to do. There’s always holes, no investigation is perfect. If I found just one perfect investigation, then we would have our definitive proof of extraterrestrial visitation to this planet!

Ok next, let’s also discuss this excerpt from your blog.

“When I asked Stan what he wanted from MUFON, he indicated that he simply wanted investigators to promptly follow up on any future activity that occurred to him. Unfortunately, Stan never subsequently called in MUFON investigators.”

That statement is determined by “whom” you talk with. Stan claims MUFON wanted all the prior data before they would work the investigation. Stan denied MUFON’s request, so MUFON denied Stan’s investigation. Stan will discuss this on a video interview he did with me on 8/27/09 originally set up to discuss the ABC special we were both in. The interview is in the process of being cut to format and will be on this site (www.ufonut.com) within a week or so of the release of this blog. Remember we do this for free, including Matt and Trina who are responsible for the video interview. We still need to work our day jobs to support our “not so” drug induced UFO habit.

In summary of this blog, there will always be inconsistency with every UFO involved investigation we do. The mere controversy surrounding the UFO phenomenon is an inconsistency in itself! I for one went on national TV and said, “Stan Romanek’s case falls within the 2% of unknowns I needed to investigate.” (sorta quoting myself then, but maybe quoting myself now…) Yes I knew about the documents, yes James discussed the “fallow” word with me at the last MUFON Symposium, and no I would never post a witnesses document on the Internet without their approval, and yes, “I still believe in Stan Romanek.”

Labels: Abductee, Abduction, Article, By Chuck Zukowski, Experiencer, Hoax, James Carrion, MUFON, NUFORC, Rebuttal, Stan Romanek

Labels: Angelia Joiner, BlogTalk Radio, In Focus Paranormal Talk Radio, Nick Roesler, Radio. Interview, Stephenville, Texas

     Hello, my name is Xxxxxxx Xxxx and I have never told this story to anyone before. When I was about 8 or 9 years old (I’m 54 now) I remember seeing a very bright light illuminating our back yard and lighting up our living room like it was day time. This was sometime in the evening and it had been completely dark outside; I think it was in the spring or summer because I remember I was wearing shorts.

I remember my mother saying something about the light and that’s all I remember until I see my mother and older sister (one year older than me) going out the back door in what looked to be some kind of trance or hypnotic state of some sort. I was behind a large chair in the living room with my brother who is 6 years younger than me. There was a small “being” standing at the back door sort of guiding my mother and sister out the back. At the time I didn’t know what “Grays’” were but this being sort of looked like a Grey except for the eyes. Its eyes were smaller, more like ours except kind of wrinkled and old looking. I remember watching it from behind the chair and being very scared. Then it turned its head very fast and looked directly at me. I don’t remember anything else about the encounter after it looked at me. I do recall sensing something intelligent about the thing.

I’ve read about the scoop marks on some abductees bodies and I have on the back of my leg what appears to be what I have heard described. This is the only experience of this sort that I have ever had; at least that I recall. I also have to tell you that this memory is very cloudy or dream like to me now. It also happened before I knew what UFO’s or ET’s were. The year was 1962 or 63 and we lived in Richardson Texas . The area was mostly rural to the North and East of us at that time.

Labels: 1962, 1963, Abduction, Alien, Gray, My UFO Experience, Richardson Texas

     There are very few stories about strange objects in the skies these days. Fabio Zerpa’s lost his ratings. But fans say that UFOs are busier than ever. They complain at the media’s laughter, and collect signatures seeking to declassify the files on the phenomenon that – they solemnly swear – the Government is concealing...

Even when they aren’t always visible, they’re always there. And what’s more, in recent years their sightings have grown in frequency and quantity, to the point that patterns are being defined. This is what Argentinean UFO experts claim, and when asked by Pagina 12, they can do no less than reject what they are told. “Of course there are [sightings] and more of them. The problem is that the media treats this as a joke,” retorts Silvia Perez Simondini, the researcher whose efforts have resulted in the country’s only UFO Museum.

“The thermometer we employ is the press, not only here in Argentina, but around the world. And the press often only gives the news, and then various cases begin to proliferate...but the fact is that the UFO phenomenon is always present,” says the man who has spent half of his life with a name that is synonymous with the flying object phenomenon: Fabio Zerpa. Acolytes of ufology are so convinced by all this that since early June, they have been gathering signatures to request the declassification of secret documents – of whose existence they are fully convinced – from the government of Cristina Kirchner and the congress.

What supports this certainty about what has occurred, and such optimism about what is to come from the skies? For starters, there are over a thousand videos shared on YouTube, nearly half a million websites that mention sightings and share research, in both cases referring purely and exclusively to the goings-on in Argentina. In 2008, the officious records kept by national researchers gave an account of “the great wave”: 550 cases reported in twelve months. Between January and June 2009, when the progression of previous years would have suggested a decrease in sightings, 235 cases have been reported each week. Added to this is the wave of animal mutilations in various provinces.

UFOs come and go. Files endure. For a long time, Silvia Perez Simondini lived in Southern Argentina. “I went from oil well to oil well, because my husband was a petroleum engineer. I lived for eight years in Caleta Olivia, and that’s where I had an extraordinary experience – a UFO flew right over my house, all Caleta saw it. Since then, I made a formal vow to research the subject.” It was August 1968, the day that her middle child celebrated his first birthday, and she was a young woman who could not understand how “an enormous UFO could fly over her house at ten to six in the evening.” It was thus that she became involved in a subject that had interested her not at all, beyond casual conversation. “It changed my life. I found my vocation.”

Forty years later, and living since the ‘90s in Entre Rios (when the city of Victoria became a UFO hotspot), she is the founder of the Museo OVNI and one of the most active researchers in the country. Simondini is also one of the founders of the Comisión de Estudio del Fenómeno Ovni de la República Argentina (CEFORA), which following a meeting held in Victoria, set out to gather signatures throughout the country. “At first we need one hundred thousand in order that a legislator can take on our request and execute a project to present before the Legislature, allowing the declassification of our country’s UFO files. We are already beyond the thousand-signature mark. In the Southern Cone, the only ones dealing strongly with the matter are Perú and Argetnina. We are very enthusiastic, because 22 countries have already declassified [their UFO files]. This is currently underway in Brazil, and it was done in Uruguay, Chile and Ecuador. They have all disclosed what is being held in the military archives.” Simondini says that in Argentina “even the police keeps UFO files,” which undoubtedly multiplies conjectures about what may be uncovered.

Why are you asking for declassification?
We, as researchers, are in fact aware of everything, but this declassification is requested for various motives. Number one, we want people to realize that this stopped being science fiction and is now fact. Impressive things are occurring worldwide with UFOs. Secondly, it should be known that all official agencies have laboratories where this is studied. But in order to analyze the elements that we find in our field investigations, we must resort to private sources that cost a fortune. No one helps us in our research. We have no subsidies, budgets or anything. However, if files were declassified, we could have our analyses performed by university labs. Everything comes out of our pockets, even if it’s only to share it with people. It matters to us greatly that the public becomes aware of all this, because there is then the chance of reporting about things as they occur, which is not being done at the moment.

So then you say that it’s not on account of a dearth of UFOs?
No, quite the contrary. What happens is that when the media invite us, we wind up ridiculed, like circus clowns. If this was official business, no one could laugh.

What kind of information has been consigned to the records?
A lot. The public is never made aware of UFO crashes in our country, but there have been.

The glow that UFOs had in the press dimmed as the spotlights of fictional productions brightened: the progressive disappearance of sightings on news broadcasts, the press and magazines was matched by successful TV series and movies that dwelt on the alien. Simondini is thoroughly convinced that the jocose treatment of the subject matter keeps researchers away, and keeps witnesses from stating their case to the media. The key is in fiction.

Why would [the phenomenon] be displaced by the forum in which these [fictional] accounts are told?
It’s just that in recent times, the truth is being told by movies. Take a look at “La Cuenta Regresiva”. Take a look at “Witch Mountain”. All of these movies are telling the truth, but for a reason. I think that they are being used by the United States to keep from having to make an official statement about what is occurring.

What would this hidden content involve?
Well, in Cuenta Regresiva they’re explaining something scientific that’s shaken NASA at this time...the fact that there’s something happening to the sun. Just take a look at NASA’s website.

Without quite being the highly specialized information provided by the U.S. space research center, Argentinean UFO witnesses, researchers and fans have more than a corner on the Internet. This also transformed – and continued to transform – the logic of how space phenomena operate. Aside from Visión Ovni (the site created by Simondini and from which the radio show she hosts on Monday nights on www.visionovni.com.ar can be downloaded), there is also the Union de Investigadores del Fenomenos Anolmalos, a multitude of sites belonging to independent researchers, and also the digital corner belonging to the dean of the subject: www.fabiozerpa.com.ar

It is Zerpa himself who answers the phone from a location the province of Buenos Aires, where he chose to withdraw when he grew tired of city life, and from which he organizes courses, writes when he can, and devotes himself to the subject that replaced his passion for acting when he was in his thirties. He is now 80, and doesn’t mind mixing it up when asked the question:

So is it true that UFOs aren’t around anymore?
I don’t agree with that. It’s not that they aren’t seen. It’s just that the thermometer we use is the press. And the press doesn’t always give you the story. But UFOs are always present. I can give you a good example— there was a wave in 2008, and an average of two UFOs a day were reported all over Argentinean territory.

And you say that all these cases were ratified?
Yes, of course. They belong to different varieties. There have been encounters of the first kind, when a strange vehicle is seen in the atmosphere. Those were countless. We also have the famous “invisible UFOs”, which the photo camera picks up as a black dot, or a vehicle, or something in the sky. If one magnifies these images, you can see that a technological device is involved: the classic shape of two inverted soup bowls joined at their edges – which is only one of the 163 shapes adopted by these devices, which have all been catalogued and identified. These invisible UFOs are now the most frequent, and there are many witness photos because technology has progressed greatly and it has become easier. These so-called invisible UFOs have a technology that keeps the human eye from seeing them times, but a camera eye can see them. During the 2008 wave there were many encounters of the first kind, but there have also been those of the second kind, which is when the vehicle descends and leaves traces of its manifestation. At El Remanso, a neighborhood not far from where I live, tracks were left in the backyard of a house by an object that appeared at midnight. Crop circles have appeared in Salta – these are geometric circles that result from the presence of UFOs. What happens is that when such marks appear, or a light, it’s not that the object is there. It could perhaps be thousands of kilometers away from Earth.

And supposedly there were many cases recorded this year?
Ten days ago, these lights, which are beams of compacted lights, more like lasers than customary lights, were seen at Nogoyá. They were responsible for cattle mutilations.

Why do they do this?
We have a hypothesis for over thirty years – they simply do this for research purposes. This also happens, but if the press does not echo our research, the public never finds out about it. I have the impression that the media wants aliens to no longer be in the news. They don’t want to see UFOs or the traces left by one. However, it happens every day. It’s as though they’re no longer interested. I don’t know. Maybe they want a spacecraft to land at El Obelisco and have a meeting with Crisitina Kirchner.

Labels: Argentina, By Soledad Vallejos, CEFORA, Diario Pagina 12, Inexplicata, Media, Ovnis, Scott Corrales, Silvia Perez Simondini, UFO, UFOs

     Human behavior is normally fascinating to observe but even more so in the context of the UFO phenomenon. I have seen the most rational and scientifically minded individuals suspend their common sense in favor of their desire to believe when confronted with the ambiguity of data from a UFO report.

Case in point is the Stan Romanek case that has taken the nation by storm. Although new to the public, Stan's case was originally investigated by MUFON years earlier and his case was written up in the MUFON Journal and Symposium Proceeding. I decided to look into this intriguing case for myself, so my good friend Clifford Clift and I arranged to interview Stan Romanek in his home in Xxxxxxxx, Colorado on September 17, 2007 where the interview lasted some five hours.

Stan seemed to be an amicable guy and open to telling his story and he consented to having the interview recorded. What followed was the long tale that is now the subject of his book titled: Messages: The World's Most Documented Extraterrestrial Contact Story.

After the interview, Stan showed us numerous videos on his computer that showed flying orbs, aliens peeking in windows, and poltergeist activity. When I asked him for a copy of the time-line of his experiences, he agreed and printed off a copy. When I asked him for a copy of the alleged Air Force memo that was found in his mailbox, he refused. I subsequently located a copy of the memo from a third party source. I asked Stan if he would provide MUFON a copy of all of his videos to analyze and he was noncomittal.

When I asked Stan what he wanted from MUFON, he indicated that he simply wanted investigators to promptly follow up on any future activity that occurred to him. Unfortunately, Stan never subsequently called in MUFON investigators.

Warning Will Robinson!

After reading the existing MUFON reports on the case, I was puzzled as to the authenticity of Stan's experiences. They sounded amazing but how could I know for sure. I decided to take a forensic approach to the investigation and to look a little closer at the evidence at hand. Starting with the timeline Stan provided, I noticed that the word "follow" was misspelled as "fallow". Wait a minute I thought to myself, I have seen that misspelling before, but where? I soon found out.

Reviewing the numerous sighting reports filed by Stan, family members and friends on the National UFO Reporting Center's web site, I found that not only had Stan misspelled the word "follow" as "fallow" in his own report, but the same misspelled word could also be found in the report filed by his sister and also Stan's friends. I would have not given this further notice, thinking maybe one person had filed all of the reports on behalf of the others, except for two glaring red flags that subsequently popped up.

On NUFORC's web site is a report filed by an anonymous third party witness who allegedly saw a UFO send a beam of light on to Stan's van. Guess which word was misspelled in this third party report? Yep, the word "follow" as "fallow". I began to get a sick feeling that something was not right in all of this, and my suspicions were further confirmed when I got a copy of the Air Force letter. Yes, the same word "follow" is misspelled as "fallow" in this alleged Air Force document. Now, what are the chances that not only Stan's own documentation and reports, but also that of a third party witness and an alleged government agency document ALL have the same misspelled word. In my mind, the odds of this occuring due to chance were astronomical.


Now you can verify this all for yourself by examining the original documents:

Romanek's Time-Line

Stan Romanek Sister's Report to NUFORC

Stan Romanek Friend's Report to NUFORC

Stan Romanek's Own Report to NUFORC

Report From an Alleged 3rd Party Witness

Air Force Letter Allegedly Left in Stan Romanek's Mailbox

So, does this prove that Stan's experiences are all a hoax? Well, it is not conclusive proof, but it definitely raises enough red flags that a more thorough investigation is required. To ignore this data is unscientific, with the burden of explaining these glaring inconsistencies on that of the person making the extraordinary claims.

Now I am willing to give Stan the benefit of the doubt into how this misspelled word popped into all of these documents, but unfortunately the world at large may not be so forgiving.

Labels: Abductee, Abduction, Alien, Article, By James Carrion, Extraterrestrial, Fallow, Hoax. Experiencer, MUFON, NUFORC, Stan Romanek

Labels: Alien, Baby, Extraterrestrial, Jaime Maussuan, Mexico, Monster Quest, Video

In November I sent the following correspondence to Frank Drake:

Dear Dr. Drake,

Back in July a colleague of yours, Seth Shostak, debated a colleague of mine, Stanton Friedman, on the idea that some UFOs are indeed ET spacecraft; Friedman took the "pro position" and Shostak of course opposed the notion.

One thing the two men agreed upon was that they both adhered to the concept of “intelligent life existing in the universe.” As the debate progressed Shostak took issue with the evidence that Ufologists in general present for their theorem—this brings me to my question:

It would seem that most of the ideologies presented today from “mainstream Astronomers” e.g., extra-solar planets, rogue planets, black holes etc., are based on “circumstantial evidence”; for example, the idea of “extra-solar planets” is deduced by a “star’s wobble”; my observation, as well as the question, is why the guidelines for Astronomers in regards to evidence is acceptable in “their field” but they won’t apply the same rules to Ufology.

I would certainly appreciate your thoughts on the “evidence or data methodologies” used in Astronomy, and why said methodologies don’t seem to be adequate for Ufology.

Thank You,
Respectfully,
Frank Warren

He kindly responded:

Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query.

However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same.In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

Frank Drake

I replied:

FW: Dear Mr. Drake, Thank you for you for your expeditious reply to my inquiry.

FD: Hi:

Well, it is hard to give a short answer to your query. Actually I was looking forward to a "detailed explanation." However, the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for well-observed, calibrated data, which can be verified by repeat observations or experiments, best done by more than one observer.

FW: Allow me to play devil's advocate based on your affirmation of equality in regards to evidentiary protocol of Astronomy and Ufology.

FD: All the astronomical claims of actual existence you mention are supported by such solid, repeatable evidence. The wobbles in stars are seen to repeat, and to follow a complicated pattern which fits precisely the wobble expected when a star is being pulled on by a planet moving with a changing speed in an elliptical orbit. This is a very definitive requirement, which is met precisely by the observations. Furthermore, in some cases there is more than the wobble to go on—the light of the star is decreased by just the right amount and with the complex time history expected if the planet passes in front of the star. And it repeats as it should. So there is no doubt here.

FW: To be clear, (from a layman's [me] point of view) since we have "empirical evidence" of our own sun's orbit presumably being affected by the gravity (pull) of Jupiter (and other large planets in our own solar system), and the orbit (wobble) seems to be directly proportional to the mass of said planet; we therefore can presume the "same effect" takes place in other solar systems, with their stars, and although we cannot see the planets, we can observe the wobble, via "Doppler Shift" etc. Since the "wobble" is directly proportional to the "mass of a planet" (at least it appears to be here, in our solar system) we can determine the mass of said planet by mathematical equation.

In addition to the wobble of a distant star, going on the assumption that it is indeed a planet's gravity causing the wobble, one could assume that if said planet were to cross between the earth and the star being observed, the light from the star would be measurably diminished.

You finally, state, that "there is no doubt here." I take that to mean that this is going "beyond theory" and is accepted as fact . . . interesting.

First I'd like to state that the "circumstantial (indirect) evidence" put on the table for "extra-solar planets" is more then enough "for me," for validation of their existence; however, playing "Devil's Advocate":

1). Can we state emphatically that there aren't "other forces" in the universe that aren't currently known that would "mimic the pull" caused by gravity of a "Jupiter sized planet?" Could another "space borne" object of the same mass cause the wobble?

2). Are there other actions that could affect "Doppler Shift," or any other form of detection in the same manner that "star wobble" does, e.g., pulsations etc.?

3). Given the fact that the most detection methods of "extra-solar planets" is relatively new, (with technology expanding by leaps and bounds) and not without controversy, i.e., ("Barnard's Star and possible planetary bodies, David Gray's disputation of 51 Peg,") isn't possible that either "new information" could surface, or the interpretation of the data may change, and affect the current conclusions?

IMHO if the answers to any of the afore mentioned questions is "unknown" or "it's possible," then that would leave "some" doubt, albeit little to the "absolute existence" of extra-solar planets based on the current methodologies used for their reality; that said, what we're left with is strong "circumstantial evidence" in support of the "theory" of extra-solar planets."

FD: Some things are still speculations, of course. Rogue planets are one. There are no observations of such a planet. But it is fair to speculate they exist from our growing modeling of what takes place as a planetary system is formed, and the prediction from this modeling that some planets will be ejected from the system. Indeed, it would be amazing if this did not occur.

FW: Agreed.

FD: When it comes to UFO reports, none of the evidence criterion are satisfied. No observations can be repeated. None has ever been definitively recorded. So the rigid standards of science are far from met. As Carl Sagan said, "Grand claims require grand evidence", and that evidence is not there.

FW: Here I have to respectfully disagree; you stated that the criterion for the rules of evidence for mainstream astronomy and UFOlogy are actually the same. In both cases we look for:

1). Well-observed, calibrated data.

2). Verification by repeat observations or experiments.

3). Multiple observers.

First let me clarify some points: The bulk of UFO reports over the last 60 years after thorough investigation, can be attributed to more conventional explanations, e.g., known aircraft, celestial bodies etc.; however, the ones addressed
here are the smaller percentage that cannot be explained in a conventional manner.

The ones I speak of are of an "unknown airborne craft" that exhibit characteristics beyond man-made technologies. It is true, that this phenomena can't for the most part be repeated "on demand" it is a "transient uncontrollable unpredictable event"; however, it certainly does repeat, and observations are to numerous to count. It of course isn't the same as observing a "fixed celestial body" and doesn't have the same obvious advantages for scientific research. It does/has re-occurred, often, and can/has been recorded in a number of ways to allow for scientific investigation; for example:

1). In most cases involving a "craft" there is "direct evidence," i.e., "eye witnesses.

2). The craft "occupies space."

3). It moves as time passes.

4). It emits "thermal effects."

5). It exhibits light emission and absorption.

6). It effects the atmosphere.

7). It can be photographed.

8). It has left residual "after-effects," i.e., forensic evidence etc.

9). It has caused electric, magnetic and gravitational disorders.

10). It has been tracked by radar

The list goes on . . .

You've stated that none (UFOs) have been "definitively recorded." This is inaccurate. UFOs, in this instance "unknown craft" have been photographed, video taped, tracked by radar, and those readings recorded. In addition, they have been pursued by "our aircraft," and those of other countries.

Finally, "all" the criterion you cite for evidence have been met for Ufology with one more addition, "eye witnesses." One only need to look at the data. This is not to say that all the questions have been answered; in fact, it evokes this one—"why doesn't Ufology receive that attention it deserves from mainstream science?"

You quoted one of Carl Sagan's often used statements; I might add that he also said, "In physics, as in much of all science, there are no permanent truths; there is a set of approximations, getting closer and closer, and people must always be ready to revise what has been in the past thought to be the absolute gospel truth."

But back to the quote you mention, "grand claims require grand evidence." Is what Ufologists suggest so grand, so far out? By your own device, ("Drake's Equation") you suggest the number of planets in our galaxy with intelligent, technological civilizations. Is it so far out that one of these civilizations is far more advanced then we, and have mastered space travel; or travel in ways beyond our comprehension. Using our own technological advancement as a baseline we have progressed in a few generations to what only our ancestors could describe as "magic" given some examples; think what might and most assuredly would happen in thousands of years, or more! I've always found it odd that intelligent people admit to advance ETI, yet believe that when it comes to traveling to earth--they (ET) "played hooky" from that class!

Omitting the evidence, the data, for a moment (regarding Ufology) and agreeing on the common point(s) that there is "abundant intelligent life in the universe," the question is not "are they here," but "why wouldn't they be?"

I would like to hear your thoughts on what I've presented, as well as my last question if you would be so kind.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Frank Warren

Dr. Drake hasn't responded to date.

Labels: Article, By Frank Warren, Evidence, Frank Drake, Hypocrisy, Mainstream Science, Seth Shostak, Stanton Friedman, UFO

     Many times when someone posts something somewhere that is ridiculous or meanspirited, I just ignore it. Ignorance is in great supply in the world of the Internet and all you need to do to see that is take a look at the comments appended to news articles. Ignorance of the UFO world is overwhelming.

Just recently the RRR Group posted a picture that my wife took at the MUFON Symposium in Denver and claimed that those of us on the Speakers panel were a bunch of geezers who had failed to solve the UFO question. It was time for us to get out of the way and let those younger, brighter and more enlightened take over. We had our chance and we failed.

Except we haven’t failed. We solved the problem. We have the proof that some UFOs are alien spacecraft and we can make that point over and over. The evidence for that is overwhelming, but not unlike Galileo, who failed to convince the church that there were moons orbiting Jupiter, we get a bunch of people who "refuse to look through the telescope."

Old geezer Ted Philips, being interviewed during th MUFON Press Conference made an important point. Talking about the four thousand or so landing trace cases that he had investigated, he mentioned that once he had a description of the craft, he could predict what the landing traces would be. In other, more scientific words, we had reproducibility, meaning the same things observed under similar circumstances and the predictability that comes from repeated observation. This was science at its best and it’s something that the debunkers, the skeptics, and apparently those in the RRR Group ignore.

Old geezer Chris Rutkowski (seen here) reviewed, at length, a longitudinal study of twenty years of UFO reports in Canada, looking for trends. Here again was a statistical study that provided information about what people saw and how it was identified, if it was identified and what it meant when the mundane, or what some would call the rational, did not explain the events. These were unidentified sightings that suggested alien visitation.

Old geezer Stan Friedman (seen here) diverted from his normal "Flying Saucers Are Real" talk and spoke about the possibilities of interstellar travel, something the youngsters, the debunkers, and the skeptics will always reject out of hand. The distances are too vast and we just can’t travel that far with our chemical rockets.

Well, of course, a chemical rocket would quickly run out of fuel, but other methods of propulsion have been discussed everywhere from science fiction to science conventions... and ways to generate the necessary energy have been discussed. Methods that aren’t beyond our current technology so that when the opposition says the Voyager spacecraft will take 70,000 years to get to the nearest star, they don’t mention that it is not accelerating. Any trip to another star will require constant acceleration until a point is reached that the craft will have to begin to slow down, but the round trip time drops considerably.

Old geezer Bruce Maccabee (seen here) examined the pictorial evidence for UFOs and there are some cases in which there are but two possible solutions. The object is either alien or the case is a hoax. Maccabee mentions the McMinnville, Oregon case which he had investigated for decades and he finds no evidence of hoax... which, coincidentally, is the solution offered by the Condon Committee, the University of Colorado scientific study of UFOs. The object in the photographs matches no known earthly-built craft and was, or is, therefore good evidence of alien visitation.

I, myself an old geezer, would point to the Lubbock Lights photographs taken by Carl Hart, Jr. in 1951. The four known pictures show the objects in V-shaped formations over the town and are either of some unknown craft (which could be of earthly manufacture though no one can point to it) or they are faked. Donald Menzel, that paragon of scientific thought and rationality, for no reason what-so-ever, declared the pictures to be fakes. Carl Hart, Jr., told me in an interview a number of years ago that they weren’t faked and he doesn’t know what they were.

I could point here that the Air Force has been less than candid in its investigation of UFOs, slapping on ridiculous solutions just to be able to label the case. For the 1957 sightings in Levelland, Texas, which involved multiple witnesses, the UFO interacting with the environment, sightings by law enforcement officers and even the suggestion of a landing trace, the Air Force decided the sightings were weather related and the culprit was ball lightning... at the time, even science denied the existence of ball lightning. No one then seemed to catch the irony of using something that didn’t exist to explain the sightings of something else that didn’t exist, at least according to those in the Air Force.

If you are interested in the duplicity of the Air Force, let me point out that according to their nearly day long investigation, their representative spoke to only three witnesses. Later, when Major Don Keyhoe suggested that there were nine witnesses, the Air Force all but called him a liar.

But the truth is that both Keyhoe and the Air Force were wrong. There were many witnesses in thirteen separate locations. Many of their stories, gathered before the publicity and within minutes of their sightings were strikingly similar, including the electromagnetic effects on their vehicles engines, radios and lights.

What all this means is that we geezers have solved the UFO question. We know what is going on and we use our experience to provide answers for those cases that we can and we suggest that some of these UFO sightings are the result of alien visitation. I believe that we know what is going on with the cattle mutilations, a subset of UFOs, I’m fairly certain we know what is happening with crop circles, another subset, and the jury seems to be out on alien abduction, though we have some very interesting terrestrial solutions.

And now we have people... scientists saying the evidence is anecdotal but, of course, that is a way to reject it without having to examine it. We have people claiming that after 60 or 70 years of investigation we have no answers, though we have many solid answers, and we have one group waiting impatiently for those they consider geezers to die off and get out of the way of the new breed who can bring a fresh approach to the problem.

I ask, just what will this new breed do differently? Use the Internet for their research? Rehash the cases that have been solved and involve us again in messes like the Allende Letters, which was explained thirty years ago? Or maybe the RRR Group will support more experiments like those two clowns in New Jersey who proved that witnesses report accurately what they see and that UFO investigators provide answers quickly...

Old geezer Marc D’Antonio told me that he knew the objects in the New Jersey case were either Chinese Lanterns or flares after examining the tape of the lights. The only people fooled were the news media who haven’t conducted much in the way of investigations in thirty years and the employees of a Ford dealership. The two "twenty-somethings" who conducted the "experiment" lied to the media, lied to the researchers, interjected themselves when the publicity began to slip, and then drew conclusions that were not based on the research but on their own personal bias. So much for the new life interjected into UFO investigations and research by the young, hip, enlightened youth.

Here’s the bottom line in this. We know the answers but we can’t get the scientists, the Air Force, the media and the debunkers to look through the damned telescope. They know there are no such things as alien visitors and any evidence that shows otherwise must be manufactured.

And now we have to put up with those enlightened individuals who believe that we have failed in our mission the last several decades. But no, that’s not where we failed. It was in the public relations war. The bad guys had access to the media who are too sophisticated to believe that creatures from another world were smart enough to get here from there. They’re too sophisticated to believe that an average person is smart enough to distinguish between the mundane and something extraordinary. They’re simply too sophisticated to look through the telescope.

So what is the answer here? Simply do a better job communicating the results of investigations to the press. Make sure that everyone knows when an explanation is the result of a desire for a specific truth rather than the culmination of an investigation. And to get those who refuse to finally look through the telescope.

Labels: Article, Bruce Maccabee, By Kevin Randle, Chris Rutkowski, Major Don Keyhoe, Marc D’Antonio, MUFON Denver 09, Old Geezers, Old Guard, Stan Friedman, Ted Philips, UFO