If the "best" sighting has to meet all four criteria, there are pretty slim pickings out there. Physical evidence cases in particular are relatively rare, and even then that physical evidence is usually explainable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._SturrockPeter Andrew Sturrock (born 20 March 1924) is a British scientist.[1] An emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University,[2] much of Sturrock's career has been devoted to astrophysics, plasma physics, and solar physics, but Sturrock is interested in other fields, including ufology, scientific inference, the history of science, and the philosophy of science. Sturrock has been awarded many prizes and honors, and has written or co-authored many scientific papers and textbooks.
youshould watch the new UFO Cowboys on Roku channel. I haven't seen them use radar yet (they have horses not planes), but when i tell you "they BRING the evidence", they BRING the evidence. everything (including abductions) they managed to catch on film. They rock!
Dixie alone makes it totally worth the watch!
I wasn't familiar with this case, but here's an extensive article that describes both similarities and differences between various reports, and mentions a blimp as a possibility. It includes a link to a video documentary (that I have not watched yet).
Melvern Noll, the miniature golf course owner, described “a flying house with windows in the top and bottom.” This is starkly different than the descriptions offered by law enforcement officials.
Officer Ed Barton in Lebanon, Illinois, at 4:21 am, described a triangular object, “longer than it was wide.” Barton estimated the altitude of the object as being between 1,000 and 1,500 feet. He described seeing three white lights and one red light. The object suddenly sped away, going eight miles in three seconds in the direction of Shiloh, Illinois. It is worth noting that in the original radio traffic recording, Barton describes how he was reaching into the squad car to grab his microphone. When he emerged, the object was far away. He did not actually see it accelerate at exotic speeds.
Shiloh Officer David Martin offered a roughly similar description at 4:23 am. He described it as being an “arrow shape, triangular-shaped object… floating in this sky over this field… with three big bright lights, lighting up the entire sky just beneath the flying object.” He put the altitude at 1,000 to 1,500 feet before the object moved to the far end of the fields “in the snap of a finger, the wink of an eye.”
At 4:39 am Millstadt Police Officer Craig Stevens reports that he has an object in sight. “It’s huge.” He describes it as an “arrowhead-shaped object.” Stevens describes the craft as having “three lights to the rear, one in the center and two to either side.” Stevens adds an additional detail, saying that it is “concaved in the rear” rather than a pure triangle. But he also says “in the concave section” there is a strobing white light going side to side. His drawing makes it clear it’s the rear of the craft, not the bottom. He further describes a “red blinking light” that is on the bottom.
https://thedebrief.org/the-st-clair-triangle-ufo-incident-of-2000-a-fresh-look/
The radar coverage (or lack thereof) of the Illinois UFO sightings was one of the more controversial aspects of the incident. As I recall, Scott AFB told one of the police departments involved that they had no radar operational at the time, and therefore had no radar data relative to the incident. Various UFO enthusiasts have claimed the data existed, but was being withheld.
The single (poor) photo is in the article I cited, above.
Thanks Ann. Sorry, I did not read the article when you initially posted the link, I'm not a fan of "The Debrief." I have now read it as I was looking for the Polaroid photo in the article. Seems they pretty much confirmed what I recollected about the lack of radar data. And I do remember having seen that photo.
Article: The Lebanon Advertiser, on the other hand, gave the story front-page, over-the-fold prominence in its Jan. 12 edition: "Huge UFO Is Reported to Have Flown Over Lebanon," blared the headline. The story's final paragraph noted that "the Federal Aviation Administration has suggested that the object may have been an advertising blimp."
Article: Although the craft was near Scott Air Force Base -- practically invaded the airspace there -- officials deny any knowledge of a UFO near the base. Lt. Col. Allan Dahncke, 375th Airlift Wing public-affairs director, said in the Base News, "The (air-control) tower was closed at the time of the sighting and no aircraft were in the air." The base no longer has radar facilities on the field, adds Dahnke, but relies on the FAA radar approach system at Lambert Airport. Lambert reported that the object did not show up on its radar.
OT: One of my very early memories (from about 1947, I think) was of playing outside after dark, then running in all excited and a bit scared because I saw words in the sky. My parents and their friends came out to see and laughed because it was a blimp with an advertising message scrolling on the display. (I'm basing the date on my age at the time, because since I don't remember what it said, I don't think I had learned to read yet.) The lighted sign was bright but the blimp itself did not show up at all in the night sky.
The best-quality recordings are of hoaxes.
Wrong thread, time for you to visit debunking humour...
you didnt answer the question.
My feeling is alot about that case would be answered by seeing the physical artifacts from film to development.
If it's a plane or drone it is already identified.
The 3 Navy videos are a good example of sightings that are explainable yet unidentified.
The 1968 Minot AFB case. In short, a team of soldiers on the ground providing security in the missile silo field observed a glowing light that was later seen by other groups nearby. A B-52 was training in in the area and eventually got some odd returns on their radar of an object moving seemingly impossibly fast around them (also for good measure it caused their radios to malfunction). There's 14 images of the onboard radarscope at https://minotb52ufo.com - they look like this,
UFO means 'unidentified flying object', 'flying saucer' or 'alien spacecraft' is science fiction.
they had a weather man tell us what he was seeing on radar. and allegedly he later drew some pics of the radar.
To "Devil's Advocate" a bit, it can be argued that words mean what people mostly use them to mean, and word meanings change as their usage changes. In that sense, UFO pretty much means "flying saucer" now -- thus the debate among those who discuss these things about whether this sighting or that was a "real UFO." That's part of why UAP was adopted by the military, so you can report seeing something out of place in your airspace without seeming to your pals to be seeing flying saucers.
Some of us have already been chided for using the term "true believers". Apart from using a long and cumbersome descriptive phrase such as "people who are convinced that alien visitors are flying around in our skies, and get very upset when their belief is challenged" multiple times in a short post, what short name should we agree upon?
It needs to not sound negative, as it should be used as a neutral descriptor, not an insult. It should also not sound as if they are merely members of some organised collective, it must be a plurality of individuals. "True believers" doesn't really pass either of those tests particularly well.
Do they engage in Saucery then?
What transdimensional practices they partake in behind closed wormholes is no business of mine.
That sounds Saucy.
I feel he is using that term in that particular context because he is not talking about all people who believe in UFOs. hes referring (based on context) to the excited people on the internet who talk about.
UFO fans is neutral, not an insult, but it doesn't distinguish between people convinced of extraterrestrial invasion (which are the ones to which the term "true believers" is normally applied), people who automatically think "UFO" at every unexpected light in the sky and think they've seen one before or hope to see one in the future (I think those would be what is often called "UFOlogists") and those of us on Metabunk who follow the threads. "UFO followers" could refer to avid viewers of the discussion, or to the alien support team streaming from the mothership, or to the human pilots who want to chase them.
i think "true believers" is fine if you are referring to true believers vs ufo supporters who are not sure. the 9/11 Truthers NAMED THEMSELVES 9/11 Truthers and yet some people complained if you used the term "911 Truther". Point is, no matter what term anyone uses, someone wont like it.
That's not true. If nobody'd think it's an alien spacecraft, your unidentified object is no UFO.
I'm not sure I've heard it used before, though maybe. I think it's just me trying out descriptives.
As a term for UFOs, I think it's a fight that can't be won. ANY term used to refer to unidentified objects as opposed to presumed space ships (or inter-dimensional beings or demons or whatever) will be immediately co-opted by those who believe in such things.
You can plaster your bedroom wall with the lyrics to different "True Believer" songs. It doesn't sound much like an insult to me.
