UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Feb > Feb 20

Student UFOLogical Article

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 10:47:05 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:03:51 -0500
Subject: Student UFOLogical Article

>Source: The Strand - University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada



>[with comment by NARCAP's Ted Roe]

>The Truth Is Out There

>Strand columnists Anthony Marcusa & Lauren McPhillips ponder our
>existence in the universe in the wake of recent unexplained UFO

>Anthony Marcusa & Lauren McPhillips



>Believe To Understand
>Lauren McPhillips

>When Anthony approached me this week with an idea for my article
>topic, I really didn't know what to think. At first, I thought I
>hadn't read his message right. Reading it again, I was reassured
>that I had, in fact, read it correctly the first time. "Aliens?
>You've got to be kidding me," was all that I could mutter under
>my breath.



>Ted Roe of NARCAP comments at The Strand site:



>Ted Roe
>posted 2/16/07 @ 7:58 PM EST


>My organization, NARCAP.org specializes in aviation cases such
>as the one described as occuring at Ohare in Nov06. I invite you
>to look our site over...We will be publishing the results of our
>investigation of that incident in a couple of weeks.

>I do have some suggestions as you struggle with the idea of
>skepticism vs science and the idea that some of these UAP or
>unidentified aerial phenomena as we call them may represent ET


>It is clear to us that unless we can define what alien
>technology is and how it works, we can not positively identify
>ET incursions into the earth domain. it is that simple. Science
>demands testability and repeatability and that simply isn't
>possible in this matter, regardless of how many eyeballs and
>radars are detecting the alleged UAP/UFO (vs UAP/ALP or
>anomalous light phenomena). When we know what constitutes an ET
>incursion, Science will have the last word on the subject but
>has nothing to offer in the mean time.

>There are other methods of examining data, the intelligence
>community uses them all the time to detect and conduct
>counterintelligence - all done without the scientific method.
>Those tools would work far better at detecting ET incursion than
>the scientific method.

>Further, broadly publishing these cases before anyone can
>investigate them only confuses the results. Newsweek hasn't
>investigated the Ohare case...just filling space with nonsense.
>Its like kids telling ghost stories with flashlights under their
>chins... The Mexico FAM flir case of 2004 is another prime
>example of a case with a prosaic explanation (oil flares in the
>Gulf of Campeche) arrived at through the scientific method. Yet,
>it is simply discarded by the believers or simply buried under
>uninformed media presentations.

My comment here is limited to the Mexico FLIR case of nearly 3
years ago. I presume Ted refers to this case because it was so
widely publicized.

There is no doubt that the oil flare explanation is a good
candidate for the explanation of the "FLIR lights," although it
has not been proved.

The Mexican air force never carried out experiments I suggested
to prove it but they do claim that they have flown in the same
area for years and have never before or since seen the oil

However, the first part of the sighting, confined to radar
alone, remains unexplained. Whatever was detected on radar
traveling about 2 miles ahead of the surveillance aircraft for
about 10 minutes, then accelerated after the surveillance
aircraft turned away from the chase - (getting low on fuel.

I don't know whether NARCAP considers this as a potential hazard
or not, but IMHO it is a radar UFO.

Whatever it was, it was capable of high speed travel, had a
sizaeble radar cross section that allowed for detection up to 40
miles away, and was invisible to the naked eye and to the 3-5
micron FLIR system on the aircraft.

The latter means that this object generated no heat. Any normal
aircraft capable of flying ahead of the surveillance aircraft
should have been (a) large enough to see from a distance of 2
miles and (b) should have had engines that emitted hot gases.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com