The Coyne Incident - The big picture
It's been a month since I published my explanation to the Coyne Incident, and based on the feedback I have received during that time, I believe most are missing the most significant aspects of it, as well as some wider issues it highlights.
The book I used as my primary source has 74 pages about that incident, of which roughly half are actual original witness reports and interviews, all of which are compatible with my explanation, in detail. But while that's the book, most have only seen the "Hollywood movie adaptations" of it.
Most of those have chosen to pick just the most extreme statements Coyne has made, disregarding the fact how he himself and all the other witnesses contradicted them. And how many of those accounts mention that Jezzi, the co-pilot on the other front seat, didn't really see anything else than the receding white light when the object left? Or how he explicitly stated having been more scared of them running out of fuel than what he experienced in the middle of what has been considered as one of the scariest UFO encounters. It's no wonder why most accounts skip those, as they don't make a good story that sells, they actually reveal it's not that good to begin with.
The Coyne Incident has been called as one of the most credible, with very credible witnesses. People want to believe it was a flying saucer, because Coyne draw one, and he's credible, right? Most accounts don't mention the saucer looked quite similar to one that was just shown on the previous day in a Walter Cronkite news report (it was a newspaper sketch of a supposed encounter with a humanoid), and the crew had just discussed those UFOs before they believed they saw one, as were the ground witnesses. Or that the only parts Coyne could actually describe in detail where those close to the red and green (navigation) lights, the rest being basically just guesswork based on the shape that seemed to be blotted against the stars above. Few have also noted that Curt on the ground draw a curiously asymmetric shape with an extension on the top left corner, which looks nothing like those saucers, but could very well indicate he actually saw the tail of that plane.
It's also commonly told that the object filled the entire windscreen, and sure enough, Yanacsek in the back seat for example stated this:
Then there's the issue that humans, no matter how well trained, are subject to all sorts of psychological effects that may prevent them from performing accurate observations or having accurate recollections what actually happened. Like when their state of mind is like these:
While most accounts remember to tout how the multitude of witnesses makes it more credible, they fail to actually utilize the information those witnesses gave. Those ground witnesses are typically left just as a side note, if even that, but their viewpoint was really instrumental in giving a full understanding how the events proceeded. And that's where we get to the boring and mundane part of the explanation, that actually forms the most important core part of it.
Those ground witnesses were the first to see that plane, minutes before the helicopter crew, and they had a much better viewpoint to estimate the speeds and directions of the main event, since the helicopter crew were looking at those approaching and receding lights more or less from the same level, when it's not really physically possible to make proper simultaneous estimations on distances, sizes and movements towards and away them, as without proper reference points those look more or less the same.
And what do they reveal to us? Here's Mrs. C. from the ground:
With that understanding, it becomes apparent that those red and green lights are a perfect match to standard FAA regulation navigation lights. It's not just the colors, but every description by every witness at every moment of time from every viewing angle describe exactly what those navigation lights should have looked like from there with the normal visibility angles planes have. The witnesses for example describe the red being brighter than the green when the green on the other side of the plane should have been partially obscured by the wings themselves, while there was a direct line of sight to the red one. And when it flew further and they saw it only from the back, those red and green lights disappeared, as they should, since their visibility angle is limited for the purpose of giving indication which way the plane is going.
And I'm aware of only one type of plane that does exactly that, by the book. For example, the estimated time it took to make that U-turn on the other side of the helicopter was consistent with the expected cruising speed and standard rate turn for such a plane. And that move and how it closed the helicopter from the side, dropped near stall speeds of planes, had that exact configuration of lights, and so on, were according to standard procedures for helicopter refueling.
The significance of all that is that what needs to be explained is not anymore what would do something so "alien", but what would do just what a refueling tanker would do. One can either apply Occam's razor, or the duck test if you like, or invent something exotic like aliens masquerading as a refueling tanker.
For example, all of the crew members mentioned that the green roof panels ("greenhouse") could explain the color of that light. Most popular accounts feature that scary green light, but few mention that "greenhouse" which explains that color.
Yanacsek also noted that:
Coyne also had initial ideas tantalizingly close to my wingtip vortex/wake turbulence explanation:
I pinned down the type of a plane that also has such searchlights, especially as some of them double as search and rescue planes as well, and those wingtip vortexes remove the need for Coyne accidentally initiating a climb. But the overall explanation doesn't really depend on those details, they are not the most important part. You can choose not to believe some specific explanation to one of those details, and there are already others to choose from. The problem isn't that the case would have something that would defy explanations, but rather there are already almost too many plausible conventional explanations to choose from.
Similarly, it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the explanation turned out to be a plane. That's what most if not all the witnesses thought at least at some point. Mrs. C. stated the speed of that initial red light was "about that of a jet" and "they first thought it was a light plane" when they saw both red and green lights. Healey said the little red light initially looked like a navigation light and Yanacsek stated there was no question in his mind that it was manmade, whether it was a radio tower or a plane. The pilots compared all those lights to navigation or landing lights on various occasions. Coyne considered an F-100 as an explanation seriously enough that he later asked from Mansfield that their F-100 fighters had landed before that. It seemed to have been mostly the misestimates on distance and movement that made them change their minds, which should have been noticed earlier by comparing the conflicting accounts by the crew and those on the ground.
It really was a mystery that almost wasn't. I wonder if they could have figured it out if they hadn't been primed by thoughts of flying saucers just before. But why haven't others figured this out since that? I believe it would have most likely happened ages ago if those events had been described more accurately in the common accounts. And I don't think I could have ever done it based on those. Some have been very surprised not having even heard of some of those decisive key details despite being familiar with this case and having seen the typical accounts. That really is a problem, and no doubt a significant contributing factor why so many of these so called "best evidence" cases are still considered as such, even though they are already sufficiently explained or have lost their credibility.
It has definitely been an interesting experience to see how people react when a case like this is explained and "aliens attack" becomes "attack against the aliens". The vast majority of feedback I have received is basically "I haven't read it, but you are wrong". Several have taken the time to write longer responses that try to insult me in some way, but that have little to do with what was actually presented. Presenting an actual solution to a long lasting mystery on forums has turned out to be a good way to get down votes, while at the same time threads that market old already solved cases as if they were still mysteries get a ton of upvotes and a bunch of hallelujahs on top of that.
Then there are those who actually bother to read at least some part of what they are objecting by default, and raise their concrete doubts, which is the way it should be, even if the answers to the vast majority of those would have already been in the original explanation. Most of that seems to follow the pattern that people are telling me it's a reasonable explanation otherwise but it fails on this or that issue. Then I show them it doesn't, and what usually follows is either silence or some statement along the lines of "Sorry, I still don't buy it, it's still a mystery". I just wish they would actually tell me why that's so, if I just showed the part that was supposed to be that wasn't.
The overall pattern of the responses is very much consistent with that of religious faith, and it's quite clear that pattern is in no way unique to this case. And obviously there are also those who do not fit to that pattern, but actually process new information in a rational way. I'm encouraged by their feedback, and thankful for the interesting conversations that have followed and resulted new insight, some of which found its way to this post as well. But I'm also saddened of them seemingly being a minority.
Or take the TTSA Go Fast video as an example. Everything it shows is consistent with a large bird, and that target does absolutely nothing interesting. But we don't know which species it was, nobody has records of birds that flew there, and there's even a chance it was a similar sized balloon instead. So is that case still unexplained, and is it guaranteed to stay that way forever, if there can't be records for the flight paths of birds? Does it matter, since it isn't really worth anything?
Good UFO cases supposedly defy conventional explanations and display capabilities beyond anything that is currently known. Or at least that's how they are marketed. But obviously they don't, if they can be easily explained by birds and tankers. At that point the need and justification for aliens or other unconventional explanations is simply gone.
Theories do not fail for lack of confirmation, they fail if there's evidence to the contrary, and so far nobody has been able to give any, not even for any of those less significant details.
What we essentially have here is a prediction what those records should show if they are found. It provides an additional way to test the theory and possibility to pin down details that the witness accounts alone cannot provide, such as the exact model of that plane and the reasons why it was there.
It's a similar situation to the scientific theories for the existence of the Higgs boson, for example, which eventually took decades and a whole lot of money to confirm. That search made sense, as the theoretical foundations themselves were strong enough that it would have been a bigger surprise if it hadn't been found. And even though there were some competing theories predicting somewhat different particles, they had similar features, as it was already evident any solution would need to have them.
Same thing here. If a tanker is not the solution, it would have to be something that functioned very much like one. We already know with high confidence it was an aircraft with FAA regulation navigation lights and so on. The entire event can now be explained with one relatively common type of plane, especially for an area like that, littered with military airports. Even if there were actual records claiming there wasn't a tanker, the most credible explanation would still be something like that. It just doesn't make any sense anymore to try to explain it with something like aliens, if the mystery and strangeness is already gone, and such a simple explanation works in principle. It quite simply isn't credible evidence for alien presence anymore, if it ever was. If there's an explanation that failed, it's aliens.
We don't know if the necessary records still exist, where they should be found, and whether they are complete, accurate or even written in the first place. Hopefully those will be found, but it can take months or years to get the results, and even then they might simply inform us that the records are already gone.
I have a feeling that those who are now surprisingly interested in actual evidence in the form of records are actually counting on that taking at least long enough. It's a convenient way to try to avoid the inconvenient conversation about what actually already happened to this case. It gives an excuse to act as if nothing happened, and keep the case on those lists of supposed "best evidence" as long as it takes to find those records. And if they do not exist, even better, as it could guarantee immortality for the case.
At the same time, the Cash-Landrum incident was probably immortalized for the opposite reason, as even a formal governmental investigation and lawsuit couldn't find evidence of a supposed UFO or the accompanying 23 helicopters. Then it has to be a conspiracy or something. With Roswell, official investigation and reports actually revealed a top secret balloon program as the explanation. Again, has to be a smokescreen. Funny thing those reports and records, it doesn't really seem to matter much whether they are found and what they say, those cases still stay on the UFO evidence lists.
It's also interesting that, at the same time, it's apparently easier for people to believe the government would be able to keep all the alien stuff secret for decades, no matter how many people would have been involved. If the AATIP/AAWSAP has revealed anything, it seems to be that the government doesn't really know much, and can't even tell the difference between a bird and alien spaceship.
There's nothing that would prevent an alien visitation, it's a plausible possibility. But there simply is no conclusive evidence for it, especially by the standards people try to apply to explanations that show just that. Clinging on cases that have no value as evidence leads nowhere, no matter how many times they are retold, and no matter how many inconvenient but revealing details those stories omit. Yet people keep on doing just that. Is it because that's all there is?
Loosely based on a true story
Missing the parts that really matter is not too surprising, since those are mostly the mundane or boring parts, many of which contradict or make the exciting parts of the story much less exciting. So most accounts of the incident choose to leave those out.The book I used as my primary source has 74 pages about that incident, of which roughly half are actual original witness reports and interviews, all of which are compatible with my explanation, in detail. But while that's the book, most have only seen the "Hollywood movie adaptations" of it.
Most of those have chosen to pick just the most extreme statements Coyne has made, disregarding the fact how he himself and all the other witnesses contradicted them. And how many of those accounts mention that Jezzi, the co-pilot on the other front seat, didn't really see anything else than the receding white light when the object left? Or how he explicitly stated having been more scared of them running out of fuel than what he experienced in the middle of what has been considered as one of the scariest UFO encounters. It's no wonder why most accounts skip those, as they don't make a good story that sells, they actually reveal it's not that good to begin with.
The Coyne Incident has been called as one of the most credible, with very credible witnesses. People want to believe it was a flying saucer, because Coyne draw one, and he's credible, right? Most accounts don't mention the saucer looked quite similar to one that was just shown on the previous day in a Walter Cronkite news report (it was a newspaper sketch of a supposed encounter with a humanoid), and the crew had just discussed those UFOs before they believed they saw one, as were the ground witnesses. Or that the only parts Coyne could actually describe in detail where those close to the red and green (navigation) lights, the rest being basically just guesswork based on the shape that seemed to be blotted against the stars above. Few have also noted that Curt on the ground draw a curiously asymmetric shape with an extension on the top left corner, which looks nothing like those saucers, but could very well indicate he actually saw the tail of that plane.
It's also commonly told that the object filled the entire windscreen, and sure enough, Yanacsek in the back seat for example stated this:
It easily filled up the entire windshield. If I had been sitting in the front seat I probably wouldn't have been able to see anything but the aircraftThat sure makes it sound like a clearly visible mothership or something, but then we had Jezzi who actually was in the front seat, behind that very windshield, and this was his take:
I never saw a body to it at all
Myth of the trained observer
A lot of feedback has plead to what I would call the myth of a trained observer, which has become a bit of a running joke, especially since the way TTSA has used it to market their lame videos with invalid claims. It's not just that people actually just believe their own assumptions on how the pilots have been trained, but they are more certain of the parts they like than what those trained observers actually claim and describe. When they are faced with the impossible combination of contradicting statements by similarly trained observers, or even self-contradicting by the very same observer, many seem to resorts to strange twists of logic rather than just admitting the obvious infallibility of observers.Then there's the issue that humans, no matter how well trained, are subject to all sorts of psychological effects that may prevent them from performing accurate observations or having accurate recollections what actually happened. Like when their state of mind is like these:
Everybody was yelling and screaming about what the hell it was and that it almost hit us. That kind of conversation kept up for several minutes.
-- Jezzi
it scared the living hell right out of me.I have been also told that the tanker crew should have been able to identify the helicopter being of wrong type by its silhouette and not even approach it. From a long distance and/or mostly from behind it in the darkness? Just a year later, there was another somewhat similar accident. During a night refueling training, a fighter jet (with obviously trained pilots/observers) mistook a relative small Power Company owned twin turboprop Rockwell Turbo Comnder as the large KC-135 tanker with 4 turbojet engines it was supposed to rendezvous with. The conditions were similar, pilots reported good visibility and there were no clouds at their flight levels. Even after the collision, the fighter pilot still thought he hit that tanker.
-- Healey
Ignored witnesses
One of the real strengths of the Coyne case is that it had multiple witnesses, with two separate viewpoints, as there were 5 on the ground as well. Not only that, but they were actually properly interviewed and their accounts were written down, which was what made it possible to figure out what really happened.While most accounts remember to tout how the multitude of witnesses makes it more credible, they fail to actually utilize the information those witnesses gave. Those ground witnesses are typically left just as a side note, if even that, but their viewpoint was really instrumental in giving a full understanding how the events proceeded. And that's where we get to the boring and mundane part of the explanation, that actually forms the most important core part of it.
Those ground witnesses were the first to see that plane, minutes before the helicopter crew, and they had a much better viewpoint to estimate the speeds and directions of the main event, since the helicopter crew were looking at those approaching and receding lights more or less from the same level, when it's not really physically possible to make proper simultaneous estimations on distances, sizes and movements towards and away them, as without proper reference points those look more or less the same.
If it looks like a plane...
Many seem to believe the flight path I drew is based on just speculation or guesses, but it's not. While the accuracy is obviously limited by the amount of information those witness reports contain, the overall shape directly follows from them. One of the key findings was how the typical accounts, and what the helicopter crew believed, on how the object supposedly approached them very fast from the east, hovered in place, and then accelerated to the west, is simply wrong. It's not a matter of me just telling or speculating that is so, but that's what the witnesses on the ground made explicitly clear. They were right there, stationary, looking up, on a known and familiar location on the map, and hence in a much better position to estimate horizontal and relative movements of the two aircraft they saw.And what do they reveal to us? Here's Mrs. C. from the ground:
Mrs. C.: The helicopter seemed to be coming basically from the south or southwest and the object was also basically south of me.
Nicholson: Did any of the lights appear to be a streak? By a streak I mean if you take a sparkler and move it very fast through the air and you see a sort of streak through the air, or did it appear to be more of a pinpoint type of light?There's no ambiguity there, even when the interviewer tried to get the answer he was expecting or hoping for. It didn't come from the east, and it wasn't that fast. And once again, it's not only what the witnesses on the ground saw, but that matches to how the crew described the object initially pacing them on their side, so they knew it was also moving from north to south. Their accounts on how bright those (navigation and refueling pod) lights were are also filled with hints how they actually were much closer to them than they thought. At one point, the interviewer even pointed out that it would be against the laws of physics if a light would stay as bright or become brighter as it recedes. It's surprising how all that was mostly just ignored, and the story continued its life with only the obvious estimation errors that didn't really make sense. They just happened to be exciting, even if not true.
Mrs. C.: There was no streaking to them at all.
Nicholson: Are you sure? Did it move so fast that a streak ...
Mrs. C.: No. Neither one did.
With that understanding, it becomes apparent that those red and green lights are a perfect match to standard FAA regulation navigation lights. It's not just the colors, but every description by every witness at every moment of time from every viewing angle describe exactly what those navigation lights should have looked like from there with the normal visibility angles planes have. The witnesses for example describe the red being brighter than the green when the green on the other side of the plane should have been partially obscured by the wings themselves, while there was a direct line of sight to the red one. And when it flew further and they saw it only from the back, those red and green lights disappeared, as they should, since their visibility angle is limited for the purpose of giving indication which way the plane is going.
While all that sounds no doubt much less exciting as scary green lights and strange climbs, that mundane part is really more significant. That's the part that explains the overall narrative, reveals the most significant misperceptions, and already makes it quite evident it was a standards compliant man-made aircraft.
If it acts like a tanker...
After that, it's just a matter of explaining why and how a humble plane would perform those more surprising or supposedly mysterious parts that most are concentrating on. Such as making a U-turn and flying slowly on top, which makes it abundantly clear such maneuvers were done on purpose.And I'm aware of only one type of plane that does exactly that, by the book. For example, the estimated time it took to make that U-turn on the other side of the helicopter was consistent with the expected cruising speed and standard rate turn for such a plane. And that move and how it closed the helicopter from the side, dropped near stall speeds of planes, had that exact configuration of lights, and so on, were according to standard procedures for helicopter refueling.
The significance of all that is that what needs to be explained is not anymore what would do something so "alien", but what would do just what a refueling tanker would do. One can either apply Occam's razor, or the duck test if you like, or invent something exotic like aliens masquerading as a refueling tanker.
The exciting non-mysteries
This case obviously earned its place among the top UFO cases mostly because of that scary green light and unexpected climb, and to lesser extent compass and radio malfunctions. The interesting thing here is that all of those already had at least partial plausible explanations before, which were provided by the members of that same crew in their original interviews.For example, all of the crew members mentioned that the green roof panels ("greenhouse") could explain the color of that light. Most popular accounts feature that scary green light, but few mention that "greenhouse" which explains that color.
Yanacsek also noted that:
It might have been a maneuverable spotlight, or it might be we were passing under it.Jezzi indicated those compass and radio problems probably were not even related to the event:
Zeidman: ...what do you attribute the radio malfunction? Was that an unusual event?
Jezzi: In that unit, no. It happened time to time. Because our maintenance, our avionics, were not that good. Things like - you'd have poor transmission and then all of a sudden it came in, or it was garbled. So I don't know if it was part of the incident or not. We had VHF. Some of the birds didn't have the two radios, and I recall it was always hard to transmit and receive on UHF because everybody prefers VHF civilian-wise, but we tried to receive on the VOR and transmit on UHF, et cetera, Fox Mike, the whole thing, and we couldn't get contact until very close to Cleveland.
Zeidman: Do you know anything about the magnetic compass malfunctioning?According to Klass, Coyne later tested that their altitude alone would have explained their radio problems:
Jezzi: Oh yes. Triple-four's magnetic compass was never the same afterwards. Whether it was like that before I don't know.
Zeidman: Larry says the compass was changed, replaced.
Jezzi: Yeah, they did that, I recall. I know they did that after the incident. That mag compass never worked.
Zeidman: He said the RMI was fine.
Jezzi: Yeah. But that's true about the mag compass. But I think the new one was goofy, too. It was funny because I did fly that aircraft months later, and it would do a 360 without any reason at all
Coyne claimed that the UFO had caused the helicopter’s radio to become inoperative for several minutes, making it impossible to contact airports at Cleveland, Columbus and Akron. My investigation indicated a more prosaic explanation: that at the helicopter’s then-low-altitude it was beyond line-of-sight range to these airports. I suggested that Coyne conduct an experiment during his next flight to Columbus—that near Mansfield he descend to the same low altitude and try to make radio contact with these same airports. Coyne ran such a test and later informed me that he was unable to reach any of the three airports, as I had predicted.Jezzi also already suspected the Climb could have been just a simple mistake from Coyne:
-- Philip J. Klass, The Skeptics UFO Newsletter, Volume 53, September 1, 1998
I wasn't aware of the climb at all - and 1,000 fpm - it could have been less. It was not that much of a climb, that steep, that much acceleration. But the climbing is something that occurs somewhat easily in a helicopter if you're not paying attention. If you're flying the aircraft and thinking of something else. We were talking rapidly about what was happening. You get excited and you just go like this [demonstrates by raising left arm] and you're climbing. And going from 1,500 to 3,000 feet in two or three minutes is not going to be extraordinary. There are thermals that are so bad that you put your collective down and you're still climbing. I've had it happen to me.
Zeidman: Do you think Larry was responsible for the climb?It also doesn't seem to speak too highly of Coyne as a professional pilot if he actually tried to fly the helicopter to the ground for an estimated couple of minutes after the danger of collision was already over, and they were just looking at the white light receding, not paying attention to their altimeter. But that's basically what Coyne has been describing having happened. It's either that, or he just didn't notice or remember all he actually did in his state of panic.
Jezzi: I don't know. Larry said, "Son of a gun, it pulled us up!"
Zeidman: You weren't following through [on the controls]...
Jezzi: No, I didn't have the controls. I don't know what he did.
Coyne also had initial ideas tantalizingly close to my wingtip vortex/wake turbulence explanation:
Coyne: I noticed there was a climb, but I didn't think there would be that rate of a climb.
Zeidman: Well, didn't you wonder "Why are we climbing - the collective is down!"
Coyne: I figured turbulence.
The mystery that almost wasn't
It's worth repeating that all that was already stated years and years ago, for the most part already in their original interviews. What this case was missing before was an overall explanation, mostly those boring parts, but there really wasn't much that would have warranted inventing some exotic explanations when simpler and more credible were already proposed by the crew themselves.I pinned down the type of a plane that also has such searchlights, especially as some of them double as search and rescue planes as well, and those wingtip vortexes remove the need for Coyne accidentally initiating a climb. But the overall explanation doesn't really depend on those details, they are not the most important part. You can choose not to believe some specific explanation to one of those details, and there are already others to choose from. The problem isn't that the case would have something that would defy explanations, but rather there are already almost too many plausible conventional explanations to choose from.
Similarly, it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the explanation turned out to be a plane. That's what most if not all the witnesses thought at least at some point. Mrs. C. stated the speed of that initial red light was "about that of a jet" and "they first thought it was a light plane" when they saw both red and green lights. Healey said the little red light initially looked like a navigation light and Yanacsek stated there was no question in his mind that it was manmade, whether it was a radio tower or a plane. The pilots compared all those lights to navigation or landing lights on various occasions. Coyne considered an F-100 as an explanation seriously enough that he later asked from Mansfield that their F-100 fighters had landed before that. It seemed to have been mostly the misestimates on distance and movement that made them change their minds, which should have been noticed earlier by comparing the conflicting accounts by the crew and those on the ground.
It really was a mystery that almost wasn't. I wonder if they could have figured it out if they hadn't been primed by thoughts of flying saucers just before. But why haven't others figured this out since that? I believe it would have most likely happened ages ago if those events had been described more accurately in the common accounts. And I don't think I could have ever done it based on those. Some have been very surprised not having even heard of some of those decisive key details despite being familiar with this case and having seen the typical accounts. That really is a problem, and no doubt a significant contributing factor why so many of these so called "best evidence" cases are still considered as such, even though they are already sufficiently explained or have lost their credibility.
Fool us
It seems to me that a whole lof of everything that has been written about UFOs in general just forms a vicious circle with people who just wanting to believe are fooling themselves and almost begging to be fooled, and then there are others who give them what they like, and profiting from that.It has definitely been an interesting experience to see how people react when a case like this is explained and "aliens attack" becomes "attack against the aliens". The vast majority of feedback I have received is basically "I haven't read it, but you are wrong". Several have taken the time to write longer responses that try to insult me in some way, but that have little to do with what was actually presented. Presenting an actual solution to a long lasting mystery on forums has turned out to be a good way to get down votes, while at the same time threads that market old already solved cases as if they were still mysteries get a ton of upvotes and a bunch of hallelujahs on top of that.
Then there are those who actually bother to read at least some part of what they are objecting by default, and raise their concrete doubts, which is the way it should be, even if the answers to the vast majority of those would have already been in the original explanation. Most of that seems to follow the pattern that people are telling me it's a reasonable explanation otherwise but it fails on this or that issue. Then I show them it doesn't, and what usually follows is either silence or some statement along the lines of "Sorry, I still don't buy it, it's still a mystery". I just wish they would actually tell me why that's so, if I just showed the part that was supposed to be that wasn't.
The overall pattern of the responses is very much consistent with that of religious faith, and it's quite clear that pattern is in no way unique to this case. And obviously there are also those who do not fit to that pattern, but actually process new information in a rational way. I'm encouraged by their feedback, and thankful for the interesting conversations that have followed and resulted new insight, some of which found its way to this post as well. But I'm also saddened of them seemingly being a minority.
Unexplained nothingburgers
I have been told the case remains unexplained until there are records proving that tanker was there. Well then, if that's the definition of unexplained, it certainly explains why the lists of unexplained UFO cases are so lame, and in many cases, explained for all practical purposes. Sure, if a car almost hits a pedestrian, and nobody got its license plate number, it can be called unexplained. But there's really no point in speculating whether it was aliens. Although that kind of approach seems to work for Ancient Aliens, so I guess those are still unexplained enough for profits to be made.Or take the TTSA Go Fast video as an example. Everything it shows is consistent with a large bird, and that target does absolutely nothing interesting. But we don't know which species it was, nobody has records of birds that flew there, and there's even a chance it was a similar sized balloon instead. So is that case still unexplained, and is it guaranteed to stay that way forever, if there can't be records for the flight paths of birds? Does it matter, since it isn't really worth anything?
Good UFO cases supposedly defy conventional explanations and display capabilities beyond anything that is currently known. Or at least that's how they are marketed. But obviously they don't, if they can be easily explained by birds and tankers. At that point the need and justification for aliens or other unconventional explanations is simply gone.
Theories and standards of evidence
I have been also told the explanation/theory "fails" because I haven't shown records of that plane being there. So now they are worried about evidence? Where's the actual evidence anything was flying there? This case has been widely considered as being among the "best evidence" for UFOs, and all it really ever was is a set of witness reports and interviews. Now that we have those same witness accounts with an explanation that is highly consistent with all of them to the detail, and also explains the reasons for the discrepancies they have, then suddenly the standards of evidence are higher.Theories do not fail for lack of confirmation, they fail if there's evidence to the contrary, and so far nobody has been able to give any, not even for any of those less significant details.
What we essentially have here is a prediction what those records should show if they are found. It provides an additional way to test the theory and possibility to pin down details that the witness accounts alone cannot provide, such as the exact model of that plane and the reasons why it was there.
It's a similar situation to the scientific theories for the existence of the Higgs boson, for example, which eventually took decades and a whole lot of money to confirm. That search made sense, as the theoretical foundations themselves were strong enough that it would have been a bigger surprise if it hadn't been found. And even though there were some competing theories predicting somewhat different particles, they had similar features, as it was already evident any solution would need to have them.
Same thing here. If a tanker is not the solution, it would have to be something that functioned very much like one. We already know with high confidence it was an aircraft with FAA regulation navigation lights and so on. The entire event can now be explained with one relatively common type of plane, especially for an area like that, littered with military airports. Even if there were actual records claiming there wasn't a tanker, the most credible explanation would still be something like that. It just doesn't make any sense anymore to try to explain it with something like aliens, if the mystery and strangeness is already gone, and such a simple explanation works in principle. It quite simply isn't credible evidence for alien presence anymore, if it ever was. If there's an explanation that failed, it's aliens.
Unsatisfactory records
At the moment we don't have any records one way or another of what was or wasn't flying there, other than Coyne reportedly having asked from Mansfield that their F-100 fighters had landed before. Everything indicates there was never an official investigation of that case. The local FAA chief Coyne talked to couldn't even tell where to report it, so Coyne eventually filed an army disposition form to have it officially on record, but there's no indication it ever led to anything. Coyne himself should at least have known, and be interviewed for it and so on, but even though he talked about the incident years later, even in the UN, I'm not aware he ever mentioning anything about any official investigation.We don't know if the necessary records still exist, where they should be found, and whether they are complete, accurate or even written in the first place. Hopefully those will be found, but it can take months or years to get the results, and even then they might simply inform us that the records are already gone.
I have a feeling that those who are now surprisingly interested in actual evidence in the form of records are actually counting on that taking at least long enough. It's a convenient way to try to avoid the inconvenient conversation about what actually already happened to this case. It gives an excuse to act as if nothing happened, and keep the case on those lists of supposed "best evidence" as long as it takes to find those records. And if they do not exist, even better, as it could guarantee immortality for the case.
At the same time, the Cash-Landrum incident was probably immortalized for the opposite reason, as even a formal governmental investigation and lawsuit couldn't find evidence of a supposed UFO or the accompanying 23 helicopters. Then it has to be a conspiracy or something. With Roswell, official investigation and reports actually revealed a top secret balloon program as the explanation. Again, has to be a smokescreen. Funny thing those reports and records, it doesn't really seem to matter much whether they are found and what they say, those cases still stay on the UFO evidence lists.
Keeping secrets
Then there are the questions on motives and keeping secrets. Apparently it is difficult to believe that a tanker crew that most likely mistook a helicopter for someone else wouldn't come forward and make their mistake public. Or that if they reported the incident to their superiors, they wouldn't want to make it public. Who wouldn't want to deal with the consequences, without any upside, right? If everyone was already blaming the aliens, well then, they were the ultimate scapegoats. It's not too likely aliens would come to set the record straight. But since they are no more suspects, there might be still hope that someone would tell the rest of the story now.It's also interesting that, at the same time, it's apparently easier for people to believe the government would be able to keep all the alien stuff secret for decades, no matter how many people would have been involved. If the AATIP/AAWSAP has revealed anything, it seems to be that the government doesn't really know much, and can't even tell the difference between a bird and alien spaceship.
Time for a reality check
It really is about time for a reality check when it comes to the so called evidence of the whole phenomenon. I have shown how one of the supposedly best cases just fell apart, but that is only the tip of an iceberg. It was just another case that faced the same fate. That is the real problem, and that most likely is the real reason so many so desperately cling on all the hopeless cases, as otherwise they would need to admit the overall situation.There's nothing that would prevent an alien visitation, it's a plausible possibility. But there simply is no conclusive evidence for it, especially by the standards people try to apply to explanations that show just that. Clinging on cases that have no value as evidence leads nowhere, no matter how many times they are retold, and no matter how many inconvenient but revealing details those stories omit. Yet people keep on doing just that. Is it because that's all there is?
Comments
Post a Comment