UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, January 02, 2012

French UFO Researcher, Gilles Fernandez offers a newsletter about Paul Kimball's "Best" UFO Case: The RB-47 Incident


There has always been some contention about the intriguing 1957 RB-47 "episode" where an Air Force crew interacted with "something" that tagged along its plane, playing with the radar.

French UFO skeptic Gilles Fernandez supports Tim Printy's analysis that dismisses the event, and Gilles provided us with a newsletter (PDF) that presents the counter view to what Brad Sparks, Mr. Kimball, and others extol.

Click HERE to access that newsletter.

(For the RRRGroup, I can say the RB-47 event remains an open question if Paul Kimball, a studious UFO researcher, believes it to be significant and not explainable in prosaic terms; although a Printy/Fernandez dismissal is not to be shrugged off either.)

RR

10 Comments:

  • Greetings,

    There is probably a confusion if I have well understood the semantic of the title !
    Even if I support "100 %" Tim Printy's RB 47H analysis, it is not me who "takes on "Paul Kimball's "best" UFO case"!
    The work have been realized more than mainly by Tim Printy.

    I have just privatly followed it from monthes now as I stipulated in Reality Uncovered forum today and I wanted to relay this impressive work. That's all.
    SUNlite is not really a site, but a free and online newsletter from now may 2009, drived by Tim Printy (it is the continuation of the one called SUN and drived by P. Klass to be short).
    You can download the different releases here : http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite.htm

    So, if the title could be corrected (I relayed the news, not endorsed/claimed the work and linked, it could be great and more real!

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Gilles:

    I've amended title of posting, so as not to provoke ire against you.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Thank you Rich to relay this important work and release done, as to have fixed the title which gived the impression I have realized the work! Nono!

    To be frank, I love this idea and the 5 mn of confusion regarding your previous title (!hihi!), but I am unable to achieve such an imho "landmark work" for the ufology and this famous case.

    Hoping you will enjoy the reading too, my best regards.

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Allow me a last comment until the next (sic).
    I understand as I believe that a title and a short summerize in a blog must be "polemical" and "attractive".

    Anyway, I think in your presentation, the choice of a "seme" like "to dismiss" is a little "exagerated".
    I have not the pretention to be the "voice" of this study. So and I will stop a little.

    But I think and I believe that the Tim Printy's document and study shows and points with several serious and well documented "inputs" that there are many "trivial/prosaïc" possibilities regarding this case before to claim the case "shows" undoubtedly a "fortean" thing (an alien craft, a paranormal thing, or dunno what you want to believe in a extraordinary meaning I mean). As we could read it here or there in ufology casuistic best UFO cases.

    The lack of care and the weak level of evidences of some ufologists (Sparks, Rudiak, etc.) is very surprising, applied to this case imho.
    But well, UFO-skeptics have maybe a different level and conception of "evidences" before to claim fortean things I think...

    At least, it is how I felt it.

    Well, with sarcasms (and taking it for me), I knew we have had already an ET craft crashed with sticks, scotch tape with symbols and laminated foils.
    Here, we have an ET craft emitting as the ground radars - CPS6B family - (in frequency, rythm (pps) and more or less same pulse width, as the revolution per minute of the signal). Ground radars in time and place of the event. It must not surprise us to have such a coincidence... Better then, it uses a 4 rpm rate as if an antenna was "turning on itself" to emitte a EM beam recorded by the RB47H.
    That's funny!
    Awesome mimic E.T. ....

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Gilles:

    You'll forgive, I hope, my hyperbole about your submission; I'm a "pot-stirrer" as our friend Frank Warren puts it.

    And I'll forgive you for sneaking in an aside about Roswell/Mogul that has terminated over at Kevin Randle's blog, for now.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • I enjoyed reading the essay which was extraordinarily well thought out as opposed to much that has written. If anything, it is praiseworthy in raising the bar of essay quality. At the same time, the essay, as potentially cogent an explanation as it is, left me with the same sense of ambiguity I am very familiar with in terms of the post editorial "what if" framework of the piece. A loose wire or the interception of an enigma sadly seems to a footnote ( a valuable one) that reinforces ( much like Anthony's tireless research) that the more detail that is superimposed in theoretical terms, the more enigmatic the events seem as being ambivalent to any one interpretation. That is not to say all this effort is for naught, but the gist of this is the role of imagination..imaging this scenario versus that and seeing where it leads, and like a dream mirror, it always seems to lead back to ourselves. Sometimes it strikes me as shoveling sand into the tide. However, I do admire these efforts to dispel myths, except to say they seem to invent more potential myths. Perhaps I am becoming too cynical.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Having also followed Tim's careful work over the past year, I want to congratulate him on finally publishing his report.

    During his research, Tim doggedly stuck to the evidence, regardless of whether it might support or detract from a prosaic explanation.

    For some believers, RB-47 was brought up frequently as one of those cases that simple defied explanation. Here we can see that things are not as often presented by UFO enthusiasts.

    One of the more shameful aspects of this is how Phil Klass' ingenious work on the case is often completely ignored (For instance, I don't think it is even mentioned in Paul Kimball's oft-referenced video).

    Unfortunately, having much experience in these sorts of things, I suspect that Tim's excellent work will receive the same treatment by future paranormal purveyors.

    Best,

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • I give Tim credit for stepping up to the plate when I challenged him to move beyond stuff like Roswell, and taking a stab at the RB47 case. It's more than can be said for most believers and disbelievers.

    He raises some interesting points, but at the end of the day, even he admits that the case remains unexplained. He chooses to believe that the prosaic theory he comes up with is more plausible than the non-prosaic theories on offer. UFOs are a Rorshach test in many ways. People will see in them what they want to see. I think it says more about the people involved than it does the phenomenon itself.

    In my case, I see it as unexplained, and that means it's still a mystery - one that will probably never be solved for reasons different than those offered by Tim (i.e. the time thas has passed, which is, frankly, a cop out - historians solve old puzzles all the time).

    But again, credit to Tim for taking a crack at it.

    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Wow, Paul, talk about cop outs!

    No response at all to the many mistakes and exaggerations exposed in your video?

    Tim nicely summed up the expected believer response and Paul follows it closely, choosing to believe in a mystery DESPITE the evidence.

    The cognitive dissonance washes over the UFO faithful and they respond in the usual way.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

  • Hi Rich,

    A small correction (or point of order, if you will): I've never said that the case is not amenable to prosaic explanation (indeed, I've never said that about any case). Rather, I've said that it has not yet been explained in prosaic terms. There is a difference. :-)

    Best,
    Paul

    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, January 02, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home