The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Thursday, March 24, 2011

The Best UFO Case, Ever???

Our friend, film-maker Paul Kimball, along with once prominent UFO researcher Brad Sparks consider a UFO incident from 1957 to be the very best incident to offer proof of UFOs.

It is the so-called RB47 bomber confrontation, as it were, with a UFO in July 1957.

Here’s Mr. Kimball’s essay on the incident, from his film, Best Evidence:



While Mr. Kimball is seemingly obsessed with this UFO sighting, we find it evidentiarily boring.

A plane was followed by a UFO, which was seen by some members of the crew, spotted on radar, and apparently interacted with the plane’s radar.

The Air Force, as is its wont, said the crew was tailed by and taken in by another aircraft in the area, as noted in Mr. Kimball’s film.

The Air Force was obviously maliciously stupid as usual, but the sighting is hardly the theochristic UFO event that Messieurs Kimball and Sparks think it is.

It doesn’t come near to explaining what a UFO is, nor does it provide overt clues that lead to a possible explanation. It is merely a well-witnessed sighting of a strange thing in the sky.

We would hope that Mr. Kimball gets over his obsession with this beleaguered sighting, and apply his noteworthy UFO acumen to sightings and incidents that resonate in more meaningful ways.

RB47 is just another sighting of an anomaly that requires more scrutiny than that provided by the details inherent in this admittedly intriguing, but ultimately soporific case.

44 Comments:

  • I thought Paul did a good job with this documentary. It matches up very well against the other UFO docs I've seen. Of the top 10, the Johnson case is the one I know the best. If there's a criticism to be made, I'd say time constraints prevented the doc from going into really essential detail about that particular case. Perhaps that applies to the other top 9 as well.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Frank:

    My critique has nothing to do with the film-clip.

    It has to do with the sighting, per se.

    The sighting is ho-hum.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • There are apparently some lacking details that are relevant.

    "Chase, (Lewis D. Chase, pilot) in reply to my questions, indicated that it was his recollection that there was simultaneity between the moment when he began to sense that he was getting closure at approximately the RB-47 speed, and the moment when Utah indicated that their target had stopped on their scopes. He said he veered a bit to avoid colliding with the object, not then being sure what its altitude was relative to the RB-47, and then found that he was coming over the top of it as he proceeded to close.

    At the instant that it blinked out visually and disappeared simultaneously from the #2 monitor and from the radar scopes at Site Utah, it was at a depression angle relative to his position of something like 45 deg."

    http://www.ufocasebook.com/rb47.html

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • I imagine that Paul has covered some of this in all he commentary he's provided about the sighting.

    It is an intriguing case, but not wholly unlike the Coyne case in Ohio.

    And, aside from the possibility that Socorro is a hoax (per Bragalia) or a misidentified LEM test, Zamora's incident is even more significant or valuable, mostly because of the trace markings, insignia, and his intense observational account.

    That sighting would rank higher, in my mind, than the RB47 case, as would the Coyne incident.

    There are others, like the Reverend Gill sighting in New Guinea, that seem to better cases than the amorphous RB47 event.

    But "chacun son gout" as Gilles Fernandez might say.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • I think some researchers have RB-47 in their ‘best case lists’ because it’s an incident that isn’t readily dismissed or put down to mundane factors. Rather than representing an answer to the question of what UFOs are, it’s more of an exemplar that lends credence to some UFO reports being extraordinary.

    ‘It doesn’t come near to explaining what a UFO is, nor does it provide overt clues that lead to a possible explanation. It is merely a well-witnessed sighting of a strange thing in the sky.’

    In terms of the ‘ho-hum’ aspect, aren’t most of the ‘best evidence cases’ similarly inconclusive and easy to summarise as strange light, radar trace and human observer? They are what they are and there’s a point at which we have to put them aside and look at the next case.

    It’s reasonable to toss out cases with cracks in the accounts, holes in the chain of evidence and coinciding incidents of Earth-bound space debris. Even moreso when the witnesses are dubious or technology doubts arise. Where none of these caveats are present (or definitive), it seems mischievous to dismiss them on grounds of their soporific quotient. On the other hand, Klass or Menzel maybe missed a trick here? They could have saved a lot of time by yawning and writing ‘boring.’

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • The Reverend William B. Gill et.al. sightings in late June of 1959 are either an outright hoax or the best UFO case ever. Multiple sightings; multiple witnesses; large structured craft below the overcast; blue beam of light shining upwards; moving humanoid figures on craft that appear to respond to hand waving. Menzel's "Venus" explanation absurd. Has anyone, anywhere, ever reasonably debunked this case?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Kandinsky:

    Any sensible, sane person knows that UFOs are a reality; they exist and are a true phenomenon, worthy of scientific scrutiny.

    To list a sighting, like RB47, among all the others that have been noted, is adding one more drop of water in the ocean.

    Th account, amongst that slew of others, is, for cognoscenti (to whom Paul Kimball addresses his material) boring, grist for the litany of sightings already under our belts.

    That's my point.

    It's time to move on from UFO listings to something investigatory in a truly scientific way.

    The RB47 sighting tells us nothing we don't know already.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Dominick:

    There have been a number of interpretations for the Gill event, one being that he suffered from astigmatism (which doesn't account for the others who saw the thing).

    It's an interesting case, not unlike that of Betty and Barney Hill incident in some ways.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • The Gill case involved 3 separate sightings on 3 successive nights, two of which had 'beings' on board. On the third night, the UFO was a bit farther away and no beings were seen.

    If you consider the whole Papua wave of that year, starting in late 1958 and going on into summer 1959, the sightings do not seem so convincing after all. See Rev Crutwell's lengthy report. On one known occasion Father Gill most certainly did not recognise Venus when he saw it. This renders his observation of the strange 'triple night' UFO of June 26, 27, 28 less reliable than otherwise. His co-observers may have been merely following Gill as their religious leader. Also there was one occasion during that triple night affair when Gill calmly went in to have dinner with the UFO hovering overhead! As though bored with it all.

    Also the RAAF (Royal Australian AF) dismissed the case as being observations of bright planets, without naming Venus. It is the 3 consecutive nights that tends to weaken the case as a true UFO.

    By Blogger cda, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Christopher:

    The events remain a true UFO case, although perhaps not an extraterrestrial one.

    Gill's actions, at first, seem strange, going in to dinner while something extraordinary is going on, but that seems to be part and parcel to a lot of sightings.

    When I was part of the thousands who saw a large, orange rectangle hanging in the Detroit skies, years ago (and noted by media and FATE magazine), persons around me took a look and went about their business.

    The football players I was with didn't even look upward. They couldn't have cared less.

    That aside, The Gill sighting intrigues, for many reasons, not all of them within the ETH.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • 'It's time to move on from UFO listings to something investigatory in a truly scientific way.'

    With all the means at our collective civilian disposal, it's been done. What else is left beyond rhetoric and speculations?

    Vallee, Shough, Teodarani, Sturrock, Haines and so forth have attacked the available data from many angles. They've used scientific analyses. What they tend to conclude is that we don't have enough data.

    You aren't alone in the sentiment, but making obvious statements is the easy part.

    By Blogger Kandinsky, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Greetings Friends,

    There is something I cant understand in what you call Ufology (what's that?).

    It is a non-sens how "Ufology" (what's that ?) is still focalized on the Residual Cases of Flying Objects depiste their UFO cases (or best ones) are NOW 90, 95 99% Identified Flying known Objects.
    Some ufologists and old geezers absolutly DONT care on HOW and WHY such cases (IFO) have been part of the UFOlogy! They have forgotten!

    And the internal and external mecanisms having creating IFO to subjects have nothing to do with the current UFO case! Two different dimensions! Awesome.

    Ufology is then the Science -sic - of the residual cases of Flying Objects? (mainly by lack of dataes to identify the prosaïc candidats BTW).

    Ufology, despite to be based on 90 95 99 % of type I error of what Ufology itselve claims (UFO's), is still alive! It is awesome -bis- amha!

    Well, Urban Legends have long live!

    It seems the "known cases" (I mean the UFO cases during a time or long time but identified later and now = IFO) seems to be the false alarms or the Noise in Ufology (what's that?).
    The UNknown(s) Flying Objets must be the SIGNAL in Ufology!

    Chacun son goût! Well, that's ufology.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Kandinsky:

    We need an Einstein, Hawking, or Kaku.

    The current UFO "experts" are a bust.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Gilles:

    Ufology (as Paul Kimball noted, I think) is a ruse, a group of people trying to legitimate their efforts by adding "ology" to their
    subject matter.

    It's a joke, and more so nowadays than it was back in the 1950s when Keyhoe tried to create a sensible modus operandi.

    Your mantra, "Well, that's ufology" is the proper sobriquet.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Dear Rich,

    What it is awesome for "me", humblely, in "ufology" (what's that?), is how "ufologists" (what's that?) are NOT focalized by the IFO cases, despite such cases were BEFORE UFO cases for "their new" Science or their call for a new paradigm! Despite they have defended many IFO's as UFO's in the name of Ufology!

    They are cutting themselves imho the own seat they are sitting down!!! But, they dont care.

    Mainstream sciences have explained many their UFO's, now IFO's, but they are calling as usual the residual cases! (what percents?)
    When one their new residual case will be solved, they will call a new one case in this circular pseudo-scientific game consisting to inverse the burden of proof with Skeptics or mainstream sciences.
    That's soporific and boring, but that's real (ufology).

    Ufology is always denying the IFO cases, despite such IFO cases were part of their call of a new paradigm or the past Gospels. Find the paradoxe here.

    More Ufology is making type I errors (to claim an UFO (ET!) despite it is an IFO), more ufology is showing as to be a dogmatic area imho (Ufology is now calling about mimetism and elusivity, poltergeist like, demons, etc, of the phenomenom as ad hoc arguments!).

    Ufology is calling Pokemon's ultimate cards!

    But of course, it is the "UFO Skeptic" who are risking type II error (to identify an IFO despite it is an extraterrestrail craft mimetized in an aircraft). Ok doki !

    That's ufology.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • Gilles,

    To bolster your position (and mine), the current issue of the New Yorker [3/28/11] has this in a letter to the magazine from Ross Taylor in Australia:

    "...Edward Gibbon...wrote, in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 'So urgent on the vulgar is the necessity of believing, that the fall of any sytem of mythology will most probably be succeeded by the introduction of some other mode of superstition.'"

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, March 24, 2011  

  • I was a hardcore skeptic until about 5 years ago, when I began a review of the evidence. Yeah, I found hoaxes and hucksters. But I also found many more absolutely truthful and genuine accounts by persons with nothing to gain, and who paid dearly for talking.

    I concluded that only one of two things has occurred. Either something which we don't control has actually appeared in and over earth's skies for centuries, and many governments have joined together to deny and suppress these events.

    OR, there are literally tens of millions of humans worldwide who suffer from a unique type of serious & disabling psychosis. Mistake or misperception can account for only some cases, contrary to the deniers/debunkers.

    This psychosis, if it exists, would go against everything medicine knows because it attacks persons who usually are otherwise absolutely mentally and emotionally normal & untroubled; whose lives are normal in every way, & who often have families & positions of responsibility in their communities. This psychosis, call it "UFO Psychosis", is limited in its effect, causing sufferers to have had, usually at only one time in their lives and never again, visual and/or auditory hallucinations or dissociative breaks of such power and realism that the sufferers are convinced for the rest of their lives that they were absolutely real. Think about that: a mental illness that is the same as a single smart bomb, involving only one subject: UFOs.

    There's more: the hallucinations are often shared by one or more persons at the same moment & place, & perceived in the same way. Astoundingly, unique among hallucinations, these can be recorded for later view by others as we often see in photos and videos. So, a unique hallucination of one subject, which can not only be shared with from one to thousands of others, but can also be physically recorded indefinitely. Simply stunning. And I have yet to see the deniers/debunkers explain how such a preposterous mass "precision psychosis" can exist.

    Sure there are hoaxers & fakers, & truly crazy people. But it's pretty easy to find them out. And the crazies are having hallucinations all over the map, not just about UFOs.

    There was another thing which persuaded me of the UFO experience: the extravagant amount of time, money, personnel & effort government agencies put into persuading us that we are not actually seeing these objects. Official actions go from unpersuasive explanations, to obvious & ridiculous lies; to the destruction and/or absence of records & documents where they exist in all other matters, to baldfaced denials of UFO-related gov't efforts observed by many witnesses(e.g.pursuit jets, numerous helicopters, etc.); to official attempts to embarrass & humiliate witnesses; to the use of military authority to permanently separate multiple military witnesses to an event, or to order silence about a UFO matter; to the outright use of extortion & threat of deadly force if witnesses do not remain silent.

    Such disproportionate responses have never previously been taken to protect citizens against any other supposedly false information or wrong idea; so why with regard to something as supposedly ludicrous and unfounded as UFOs? Why are our governments so concerned that no one believe UFOs have been observed?

    There is only one answer. It's time to put all efforts into discovering what & whence, not whether, UFOs are.

    By Blogger Jum, at Friday, March 25, 2011  

  • Jum:

    You sum it up nicely...

    "It's time to put all efforts into discovering what & whence, not whether, UFOs are."

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, March 25, 2011  

  • What you say is 100% true, Rich. I see the error of my ways, now, and vow that from this point forward, I shall dedicate my efforts to posting anything and everything by Anthony Bragalia that deals with the Roswell incident, as surely that is the best way forward. ;-)

    P.S. Your posts would have a little more credibility if you avoided terms like "obsessed".

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, March 26, 2011  

  • @ Frank

    A revised version of the film is being done over the next couple of weeks. Mostly it's just new narration - a new narrator, and a few tweaks here and there. However, the Santa Barbara Channel case is the one case where I've taken the opportunity to significantly revise the narration. Like you, I think it's a great case.

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Saturday, March 26, 2011  

  • Paul:

    You know I have an obsession with the word "obsession" in all its parameters.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, March 26, 2011  

  • I gave the full documentary a rewatch and it's very good, better than I remember it. Paul used animation very well to help with the visualizations. The different cases cover a nice range of UFO incidents. Quibbling over which case belongs in which slot is part of the fun of making Top 10 lists. I'd probably put that Johnson case at #1. ;O)

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • Of course, Frank, Paul's documentary is nifty, as his endeavors usually are.

    But do top 10 lists take us anywhere towards what UFOs are?

    It's an endeavor in frosting without the cake.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • "But do top 10 lists take us anywhere towards what UFOs are?"

    Nope, just what they aren't. The rest is speculation. Of course, the better informed the speculation is, the better. It always must be based on the best information available. The UFO phenomenon tends to fall down when people use each other as sources instead of original material. The editing process, biases, dramatic license, all tend to murk things up more than a bit.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • Exactly, Frank...

    If we could just away from flaunting UFO cases and look at those cases in a serious theoretical, scientific way, that might prove beneficial.

    But most UFO aficionados like the flag-waving and pretense of doing something worthwhile, using a lot of noise and hype, while avoiding anything coming close to scrutiny.

    It's no wonder that news media, academe. and science eschews the topic.

    Top Ten lists are grist for guys like Letterman, not scientists.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • Top Ten lists are grist for guys like Letterman, not scientists.

    Rich, with all due respect - grow up. It's television. It's not the National Academy of Sciences, nor does it pretend to be.

    Frankly, all this self-congratulation about how smart you are, and how dumb the poort plebes are, is a bit... well, obsessive. ;-)

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • Paul:

    Thanks for the good-natured advice.

    But it is so tiring that no one in the UFO world is taking a serious theoretical look at the phenomenon.

    You're a brilliant guy, but have spent the last few weeks clearing the air about the Paracast, defending Carol Rainey (rightfully), and supporting Alfred Lehmberg.

    Your brilliance has been scattered to the four-winds of UFO nonsense, which is your right, in Canada, the USA, and other free venues.

    Your "Best Evidence" helps those in the UFO community see that UFOs are a real phenomenon, but you're preaching to the choir.

    I love you, and your work. It is objective, decent, and done with a good heart.

    But come on, making up Top Ten lists is for comedians, not real researchers or those serious about the essence of an intriguing phenomenon.

    I'm not the only one who needs to grow up.

    And I say these things with strong affection for you and your friendship, and your diligent work with UFOs, ghosts, et cetera.

    I never said I was smart, but I am well-read, and I do know the difference between scientific endeavor and tomfoolery. I do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, March 27, 2011  

  • But come on, making up Top Ten lists is for comedians, not real researchers or those serious about the essence of an intriguing phenomenon.

    Ah, but you miss the fundamental point. Making films is how I make a living. Thus I have to make films that people will want to finance, because like anyone else, I don't work for free. The people with the money are television networks and distributors. I make the best films I can, but its always under the constraints that my job puts on me. Frankly, I'm surprised I've been able to pre-sell as many UFO-related films as I have, and make them the way I want to, because the market for them within TV is pretty narrow.

    Nick is the same way when it comes to writing.

    Now, if you or someone else wants to pony up the money required to make the kind of film that you would like to see, I'm all for it. Indeed, I'm starting an IndieGoGo fundraising campaign this week to raise the money required to shoot Beyond Best Evidence, which will examine the very theoretical questions you want raised. I think there's a market for that stuff beyond television. But once again, it's my job, so I can't do it for free.

    You know where to find me. ;-)

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Paul:

    I hear you, loud and clear.

    I've been pushing to get you some monetary support for a while now.

    But there are caveats from my posse.

    (I'll address them with you, privately, upcoming, soon.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Rich,

    Don't worry about it. I was just making a point. Feel free to donate $5 when we launch the campaign. :-)

    Frankly, I would rather be making films about travel, or classical music again. But I have one more UFO film left to do first. After it's done, I can't imagine having anything else to say.

    By the way, I don't think I've referenced Mr. Lehmberg, one way or another, in any of my postings about the Woods / Rainey brouhaha. That said, I think Steinberg contacting his ISP tells you all you need to know about how Steinberg operates - the easy alternative is to just delete the messages, unread. It takes all of five seconds, at most.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • That's Infotainment!

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Paul:

    Steinberg, while I like some of his thinking about UFOs, is outside our interest, for several reasons.

    Lehmberg? He's a VietNam vet so we owe him some respect, but that's it.

    You, on the other hand, deserve support and our full attention, as you have established a sensible approach to UFOs and ufology.

    But, like me, should be addressing other aspects of life that may be more transcendental...may be.

    I think we'll be chipping in some moolah for your upcoming project, as it resonates with me.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Rich,

    Any support is always appreciated.

    As for Steinberg, one of my favourite drinking games is to listen to The Paracast and take a shot every time he says "Major Donald E. Keyhoe". You can get drunk pretty quick on most nights.

    The longer I look into all of this paranormal stuff, the less amenable I think it is to scientific study, in the true sense of the term - which is not to say that scientists and scientifically-minded people shouldn't be interested in it (whether ghosts, or UFOs, or whatever), but rather to say that if we really are dealing with a non-human intelligence of some sort (aliens, God... who knows?), then I doubt that we are anywhere near advanced enough to detect it on anything other than its / their terms.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Paul:

    I have two minds about UFOs, either they are unique but prosaic or they are something beyond our ken, something from the Twilight Zone (that string theory hints at).

    We are pursuing the phenomenon, privately, despite my public utterances here, to avoid the nonsense that permeates the matter nowadays, all over the internet.

    (I can't seem to shake my "obsession" with the things.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Both Rich and Frank should tune into the X-Zone show tonight, apropos of this post and comment threat. ;-)

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • @PK:

    "...and comment threat. ;-)"

    Hey, good one! My comment threads will always seem to be comment threats, to someone, somewhere... 8^}

    Boy, do I have a lot to say about this thread, and the crucial details missing from the blog post. But, I will defer to later, after my commentary over on "The Mystery of Aliens," part deux, first.

    Has anyone here recently read the 40+ pp. "exegesis" on this case by Brad Sparks, from Jerome Clark's "UFO Encyclopedia." Vol. II, from 1998? Or any of the subsequent updates by Brad to that massive, excruciatingly detailed analysis of the 1957 RB-47 case, or the later RB-47 cases that had involved a UFO encounter? I'm reading my old copy right now, and will have more to say later tonight or tomorrow.

    To sum up, I'd put the RB-47 case among the top 5 to 10 of all time, for all sorts of good reasons and recorded, factual data. Sparks blows the old Klass "explanation" out of the water! Examining the accurate flight path maps is critical in understanding the singularity of this incident.

    More later...

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Listen Steve:

    Don't get so hyper about the RB47 case.

    It's an interesting, even dynamic UFO encounter but it doesn't do one damn thing about explaining the UFO enigma.

    Its subliminal clues aren't helpful either.

    So take it easy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Er... that was supposed to be "comment thread". ;-)

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Sawyer got it...

    I didn't. I went looking for a threat [sic].

    It was exciting for a little while.

    Rr

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Alas, I don't make threats. Too much wated effort. I just do it. ;-)

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • @ RR: [my comments inserted / bracketed]

    "Don't get so hyper about the RB-47 case.

    [Who's getting "hyper"? My detailed comment will be pretty straight-forward and factual.]

    "It's an interesting, even dynamic UFO encounter but it doesn't do one damn thing about explaining the UFO enigma.

    [Kandinsky made comment above in reference to a different iteration of this same comment, RR. What makes you think any one or more "UFO encounter"/s would "explain" anything about the nature of the "UFO enigma," itself, per se? UFO "displays" vary quite a bit, and it's neither their purpose nor in the nature of a UFO incident to "explain" ...anything. UFO sightings are not a form of "catechism" or object lesson. If anything, they tend to be agents and forms of obfuscation. They raise questions, and we seek answers. Have gun, will travel...]

    "Its subliminal clues aren't helpful either.

    [Well, thankfully I'm not referring to "subliminal clues." What I intend to provide are factual, little-known details, which hopefully will illuminate how and why this case is important, and that should actually be helpful in providing a better understanding of it.]

    "So take it easy."

    [Oh, I intend to. No need to take it "hard," or however you thought I might otherwise express an alternative view than that this is simply a "soporific" case. It is, in fact, a "terrific" case, due to discoveries by Brad Sparks, which I will lay out succinctly, though that might take me 2 or 3 parts to document properly. Not to worry! 8^}]

    By Blogger steve sawyer, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • Well, Steven...

    If Brad Sparks provided clues that allow you (and others) to conclude something about the nature of UFOs, why are we still discussing the things and calling them an enigma?

    You'll take a few details that Sparks uncovered or discovered and hope that we peons will see that the RB47 incident is the ultimate UFO case that blows the lid off the mysterious phenomenon.

    Have at it, as is your wont. It's time for another ufological laugh.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, March 28, 2011  

  • So what is your take on Stan Friedman?

    By Blogger sales, at Wednesday, April 20, 2011  

  • Sales...

    See more recent postings and comments.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, April 20, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home