Granted, those are some pretty far out conjectures to make. I took them as him spouting off hypotheticals.
But the fact remains that this guy was order to fire 24!! missles at a target. I’m very sure that orders like that aren’t given lightly or without double checking.
Not that impressive. They were small unguided rockets with terrible accuracy.
Lets see…
At night.
50 years ago, only coming to light now because a “sinister official” warned the storyteller off a half century ago and he just realized, at age 77, it’s OK to come forward with it for the first time.
An “alien intruder” that was “the size of an aircraft carrier.” (At least it was smaller than the mile-and-a-half-wide blob of astronaut pee in the OP link)
The RAF orders a US pilot to (singlehandedly?) scramble to shoot down an alien bogey…over England.
Which then disappears at 10,000 mph.
You have to be hardwired to believe in order to accept that this sort of silliness is convincing.
It is very difficult to describe something objectively, because there is a strong desire to interpret what is seen in order to make sense of it when it is out of the ordinary. In an emotional state of anxiety and confusion that often accompanies sightings of something unknown, it is very easy to draw comparisons to something familiar. But that purely objective description is far more valuable and true to reality than saying “It looks like___,” “It acts like_____,” “It acts as if it’s_____” and “I see what looks like____.” Those are all very subjective personal interpretations that are given full credence and regarded as gospel truth, simply because the person saying it was an eyewitness or is held in awe for being an eyewitness. There is no more truth to their statements than if I say there was a unicorn in my back yard. I was there and I saw it. I know what I saw. How dare you question what I saw when you weren’t even there.
There is also the logical fallacy that one exception trumps all other consistent observations. This might be true for the first three or four times a particular phenomenon is observed, but after hundreds or thousands of observations, it isn’t true. It would require willful ignorance of reality, magical thinking, delusional thinking or naivete to think that the exception proves the rule. If I look up and don’t see a UFO, that doesn’t prove that UFO sightings are or not real or evidence of extraterrestrials. I didn’t see anything. The level of proof shifts to comparing the UFO to a known standard. So far we have no universal, objective standard of what a UFO looks like, outside of subjective descriptions from movies or books. This is where purely objective observations without any interpretation whatsoever is most valuable. Most people are not trained to observe things in this way, but most of us will grant truth to an emotion-laden subjective interpretation. Objective description or subjective interpretation: which do you think is closer to the truth?
Vlad/Igor
(looks at vid) …argh, not every “s” requires an apostrophe before it!
Can anyone explain why the video is so…wavy? It’s like it’s shooting through a hear haze or something.
I assume by that point we’re just dealing with the shuttle in orbit, not during boost, right?
-Joe
I didn’t see any link to the official report, but here’s my question:
If this pilot fired all 24 of his missles, what did he hit?
He was ordered to fire but didn’t. Because there was nothing there.
As others have said, he waited 50 years to mention this story.
No urgency then. :rolleyes:
The RAF don’t take kindly to foreign pilots (even allied ones) firing salvoes of missiles at unidentified targets. Consider the damage caused by a craft the size of an aircraft carrier crashing. :smack:
if the authorities truly believed this was an alien craft that had presumably travelled interstellar distances and was powered by incredibly advanced technology, why the f*ck would they order it to be shot down? 
This story is a load of rubbish.
Blue Book was specifically implemented to debunk UFOs, then disbanded when someone in charge realized that they couldn’t explain everything.
You obviously don’t know how Americans operate. Shoot first, ask questions later, or in some cases, figure out what you actually shot at after. 
That’s the way I heard it too.
Whatever the truth of this phenomenon, it is worthy of study and not ridicule, if only for the psychological aspects of it, but there is hardly any serious coverage of the topic in the social sciences, as far as I am aware.
You didn’t answer his question: Ryan Liam - “what about Military reports of UFO’s where planes actually chase these objects around, or where military aircraft give chase and their entire electronics are shut off etc?”
So if you were in an airplane and a salvo of 24 rockets was fired at you, you would shrug your shoulders and say, “Meh, not that impressive, they’re just small unguided rockets with terrible accruacy.”
I did answer it, in Post #21.
Here’s his question, in full:
(by Ryan Liam)
"Ok, that’s a good point in explaining civilian UFO reports, and I agree that more than likely that about 99.99999999999% are perfectly explainable, however, harking back to a previous post, what about Military reports of UFO’s where planes actually chase these objects around, or where military aircraft give chase and their entire electronics are shut off etc? "
My answer is that no one will be able to satisfy his, “Well, I see your explanation makes sense for that, but what about this” approach. It’s utterly useless to address a given (or even all) Military Report because what is going on is an underlying determination to Believe.
I did address the Military Report cited a few posts ago. I will not be returning to address them all one by one.
I would if none of them hit me. If I were flying an interstellar aircraft carrier I doubt I’d be bothered if all of them hit, having about the explosive power of a hand grenade.
You’re trying to make light of something major just to get past the point and not have to answer it directly. I’s called Argument from Diminishment and Minimization. When you saw them coming at you before they missed, you would be shitting bricks and praying to the god(s) you’ve renounced.
You are making assumptions about interstellar aircraft carriers that you have an a priori belief that they don’t exist. That’s like saying, “I don’t believe in faries, but they probably have dust on their wings.”
A hand grenade would blow your ass away.
You realize that you just chided someone for not taking a hypothetical (and a bit far-fetched) question seriously? :dubious:
May I go back to the actual evidence we have?
I’m pretty sure that’s it, but…
Further, there is other evidence that would lead me to suspect that these two possibilities are not equally possible:
So, am I justified to conclude that aliens exist based on my information or should I be cautious and assume the knowledge of the latter three are more likely?
You’re the one that brought in me flying an airplane. I assume that an object of that size that can fly at 10,000 MPH in the Earth’s atmosphere would be able to handle a hand grenade, yes. The point is moot if it “flew away” before he could shoot though, isn’t it?
J. Alan Hynek was the expert who quit after a while. He said they would reject any evidence that did not fit their preconceptions. He also was one who urged them to start investigating them for the purpose of "debunking ’ the sightings. He became a big time believer.
I got no dog in this hunt, but I have to point out that the records are being declassified (or have been by now I guess); that may be why he is speaking out now.
He was ordered by shoot by “RAF Controllers”. RAF=British. 
