# RB-47 UFO - "first scientific proof of the existence of UFOs"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2011, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104 "2011-12-05T05:18:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mister\_Roboto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@Mister\_Roboto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mister_Roboto)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104/21 "2011-12-07T03:26:22Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > The fact that the USAF stopped investigating so-called “UFOs” years ago, ought to mean something. If there are reports of unknown aircraft in the US, I don’t think they’d ignore that! This would have been especially important during the cold war. I’d speculate that they would be ad hoc committees rather than something like Blue Book, though. > [@Fluoridation\_Plot](#): > > First off, there are plenty of newer UFO recordings. While not exactly new anymore, the Phoenix lights, recorded from many different locations in 1997, are much more recent than the '50s - 70’s. The only videos are for the later event (which were flares), while there are no good videos for the earlier “impressive” event…One amateur astronomer thought the earlier objects were airplanes flying in formation according to Wikipedia. > [@Fluoridation\_Plot](#): > > I’m not going to read a 31 page report, however, I have thoughts. > > Whether or not this is the most significant single case, the greatest support for the existence of what I’m willing to call “apparently guided flying objects” (the term UFO can envelop a lot more than what we’re talking about, however, terms like “flying saucer” is too limiting, and “spacecraft” is presumptuous. I say “apparently guided” because our perception is that they are guided but this could be an illusion) I think the real evidence comes from the sheer volume of sightings. Even if 90% of all claims are explained by some “normal” means, it still leaves a staggering amount of incidence that are not explainable. Even the best evidence is dismissible if it only happens once. **An endless supply of mediocre evidence, on the other hand, is very hard to ignore.** I don’t agree. Garbage in, garbage out. > [@Voyager](#): > > I remember a movie, a pseudo-documentary from the early 1950s with pretty much these claims - though the radar back then was more primitive. It ended with sightings around Washington DC, which really happened. I personally started reading about UFOs 45 years ago, and I’m still waiting for evidence. > > A good thing to read is “The Great Airship Mystery” a book about a spate of sightings of motor driven airships in the 1890s. Not aliens, there were close encounters of the third kind with the pilot, who was from New England, supposedly. There were cases of multiple people seeing them, and much of the same testimony we get from UFOs. Very convincing - except we know for sure these things never existed. It is out of print, but your local library may have a copy. Yeah, I know a bit about that. It’s fascinating how the mythology develops. > [@colonial](#): > > Not only have I personally observed numerous UFOs I have been abducted by them three times now. > My most recent abductors were a race of ETI Amazons. Wowie zowie were they ever good-looking, > once I got used to the green skin! Are you sure you weren’t just watching the ETI Amazon episode of Futurama while on acid? 😉 > [@CalMeacham](#): > > Klass’ work on the case appears as two chapters in his book **UFOs Explained** from 1974 > > [Amazon.com](http://www.amazon.com/Ufos-Explained-Philip-J-Klass/dp/0394721063) > > **I’ve reread the book many times over, and Klass made a convincing case** that the phenomena were a combination of misidentified visual phenomena and radar echoes. (This isn’t just an off-the-cuff “explanation” The author actually made a similar statement, but with one caveat: > [@](#): > > And it was unquestioningly the most impressive UFO case ever to be convincingly demolished by skeptics Philip J. Klass and Robert Sheaffer - until now. [QUOTE=CalMeacham] – Klass goes into some detail, and he obtained the operating manual and specs for the kind of radar used, and his explanations invoke the peculiarities of that radar). [/QUOTE] Sparks explains this as some sort of attempt by the object to “mimic” the Duncanville radar. The only major difference was the pulse duration (2.0 microseconds for the object, 1.0 microsecond for the radar). Klass offered a “ground smear” explanation for this, but apparently his explanation was implausible(?). [QUOTE=CalMeacham] I see that the pro-UFO forces don’t buy Klass’ explanation, and claim that he makes impossible suggestions, but I’ll have to have a look at those. [/QUOTE] Klass does have the subsonic RB-47 flying at supersonic speeds for some parts, and other things. It’s very possible he was close to what really happened, but as it stands the details of his explanation are a bad fit. > [@](#): > > Some portions of Klass’s published map of the incident seem to require the subsonic RB-47 to fly at impossibly supersonic speeds, such as more than 1,300 mph or almost Mach 2… > [@CalMeacham](#): > > Here’s a brief description of Klass’ work that pretty much tallies with my recollections (it’s been a few years since I read his book): > > [http://www.blather.net/archives/uncon97/klass97.html](http://www.blather.net/archives/uncon97/klass97.html) Thanks. It would be nice to have the technical details of his explanation, though. > [@Revtim](#): > > I’m pretty sure solid objects have been proven to exist already. Is there some reason to believe this is a particularly special solid object? Because it flew? Humans have been making flying solid objects for a century. There’s nothing stopping you from reading the report, you know. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104/22 "2011-12-07T03:52:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Thanks. It would be nice to have the technical details of his explanation, though. Then you’ll have to find a copy of his book. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104/23 "2011-12-07T14:45:04Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Forget that. Next time they abduct you tell them that you are suing for joint custody of the green skinned babies they will be producing. You’ll make a mint. Mmmmmm… mint babies. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104/24 "2011-12-07T18:37:43Z")
> [@Mister\_Roboto](#): > > There’s nothing stopping you from reading the report, you know. Yeah, I should have read the report before making my snarky comments, or not made them at all. My apologies. I won’t comment any more unless I read it. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2011, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104/25 "2011-12-07T18:51:47Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Mmmmmm… mint babies. I’m glad somebody got it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rb-47-ufo-first-scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-ufos/605104.md?page=1)