Portage County/Ravenna UFO chase 1966

[Magical Realist]

It is unidentified, which means it could be something as mundane as a helicopter or weather balloon. The very notion of being unidentified means that it could be anything at all. Which makes no sense to see you argue that it cannot be something mundane like a helicopter, while demanding it is a UFO and arguing as though you have identified it...

If it is a UFO, then it can be anything MR, including a helicopter or weather balloon. It makes no sense to argue that it is a UFO and then dismiss everything because it does not fit into what have clearly identified it as being.

So is it a UFO - which opens it up to being anything at all, including something like a helicopter? Or not? If you argue that it cannot be a helicopter or weather balloon or satellite, which is what the authorities identified it as being, then it means it is not a UFO..

If you call it a UFO, it means accepting that it is merely unidentified which could mean that it could be anything at all, including a helicopter or weather balloon or any other thing or object. Something unknown. You cannot call it a UFO and then demand that it cannot be certain things. That fails to fit the profile or definition of a UFO. So it makes no sense for you to keep arguing it is a UFO while demanding it cannot be certain types of aircraft or object..

You're just repeating the same old erroneous claims over and over again. It's a UFO and anything known at the same time. That's not the definition I gave you. You don't get it. And I don't care to repeat the definition again. Don't waste my time anymore..

 

[Bells]

You're just repeating the same old erroneous claims over and over again. You don't get it. Don't waste my time..

It is either a UFO or it is not.

If it is a UFO than it could be anything, including something like a helicopter. If you are arguing that it is not a helicopter, then you have identified it as being something else, which means it cannot be a UFO by the very definition you provided.

The definition you provided means you cannot dismiss anything it could be, because it has not been identified.

Which is what everyone keeps saying to you. That by being an unidentified flying object, it can be anything and it means that if you are going to ascribe a definition or label to it, it is no longer a UFO but something that has been identified.

So why do you dismiss what it could be, while demanding it is a UFO? You don't know what it is, it is a UFO, remember? So why do you then demand that it is not a UFO by dismissing what people say it could very well be? Again, if it is a UFO, it can be anything. People suggesting it can be anything are correctly treating it like a UFO. You are demanding what it cannot be, while calling it a UFO. That makes absolutely no sense.

I am going by the definition of UFO you provided. So my "claims" are not erroneous. I am simply treating it like a UFO and suggesting it can be anything but has clearly not been identified as anything. You are demanding it is a UFO while ascribing a definition to it as though you have identified it, while dismissing people treating it like it is an unidentified flying object. Why do you do that?

 

[paddoboy]

LOL! You can cherry pick articles all day long from the web and post them, but that's not going to make all these compelling encounters I've posted here and other places go away. They happened. They're real. And saying they don't exist won't make a damn bit of difference. Ain't reality great? It stays there whether you believe in it or not.

Yes, something happened......It certainly was real enough, and yes reality is great!!! They are officially and strictly UFO's with the emphasis on unidentified......and it remains that way whether you and/or river believe otherwise or not.

 

[Magical Realist]

It is either a UFO or it is not.

If it is a UFO than it could be anything, including something like a helicopter. If you are arguing that it is not a helicopter, then you have identified it as being something else, which means it cannot be a UFO by the very definition you provided.

The definition you provided means you cannot dismiss anything it could be, because it has not been identified.

Which is what everyone keeps saying to you. That by being an unidentified flying object, it can be anything and it means that if you are going to ascribe a definition or label to it, it is no longer a UFO but something that has been identified.

So why do you dismiss what it could be, while demanding it is a UFO? You don't know what it is, it is a UFO, remember? So why do you then demand that it is not a UFO by dismissing what people say it could very well be? Again, if it is a UFO, it can be anything. People suggesting it can be anything are correctly treating it like a UFO. You are demanding what it cannot be, while calling it a UFO. That makes absolutely no sense.

I am going by the definition of UFO you provided. So my "claims" are not erroneous. I am simply treating it like a UFO and suggesting it can be anything but has clearly not been identified as anything. You are demanding it is a UFO while ascribing a definition to it as though you have identified it, while dismissing people treating it like it is an unidentified flying object. Why do you do that?

No..it is an unidentified flying object. A UFO. It cannot be a helicopter because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions given. It cannot be a weather balloon because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions given. It cannot be the planet Venus because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions. ETC and ETC. It is a UFO only.

That's why when you go to a bookstore and pick up a book on UFOs you are not going to read about identified objects like helicopters, weather balloons, or the planet Venus. You are going to read about otherworldly unknown objects that exhibit typical traits and have been encountered thousands of times over the past 70 years.

I've been studying this field for 15 years now. Ufologists refer to ufos regularly. Never does it mean a known object. It is a mysterious unknown object that emits powerful energies, appears and disappears, is disc, triangular, oval or cylindrical shaped, outperforms manmade craft, morphs into different shapes, leaves emf burns on eyewitnesses, makes little to no noise, and leaves physical traces when it lands. That's what we know. They are NOT known objects or phenomena. Deal with it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the lexicon of ufology the word UFO also has different meanings in different contexts. While it is clear that the word is meant to be applied to objects that appear to be extraordinary or out of this world, not all the objects in UFO reports turn out to be UFOs. Therefore for the purpose of investigation, the objects in UFO reports are not classed as UFOs until the reports have been investigated and all known natural or manmade objects have been ruled out with reasonable certainty. In his classic book The UFO Experience, eminent ufologist and astronomer Dr. J. Allen Hynek puts it this way:

"We can define the UFO simply as the reported perception of an object or light seen in the sky or upon land the appearance, trajectory, and general dynamic and luminescent behavior of which do not suggest a logical, conventional explanation and which is not only mystifying to the original percipients but remains unidentified after close scrutiny of all available evidence by persons who are technically capable of making a common sense identification, if one is possible."====http://www.ufopages.com/Control/Reference/AF_R01.htm?UFO-01a,Default-01a

 

[paddoboy]

No..it is an unidentified flying object. A UFO. It cannot be a helicopter because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions given. It cannot be a weather balloon because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions given. It cannot be the planet Venus because that is a known object. That has been eliminated because it doesn't fit the descriptions. ETC and ETC. It is a UFO only.

Fabricated nonsense MR. If something is unidentified, it is simply unidentified, and in actual fact, anything is possible.
Just because it doesn't look like a helicopter at first glance, is not any reason to totally dismiss that under circumstances it just maybe a helicopter.
You see the facts that you seem to want to continually hide from, like atmospheric disturbances, meteorological effects, wwwwierd light rafraction/reflection can all play tricks with what we may presume or not presume.
In essence, in spite of your crusade here, UFO's simply remain as UFO's for most reasonable scientifically thinking people.

 

[Magical Realist]

Fabricated nonsense MR. If something is unidentified, it is simply unidentified, and in actual fact, anything is possible.

Nope..an unidentified object can't be an identified object at the same time. That's a logical contradiction.

Just because it doesn't look like a helicopter at first glance, is not any reason to totally dismiss that under circumstances it just maybe a helicopter.

A helicopter at 300 ft above you is very loud and very unmistakeable. Everyone knows a helicopter when they see one. The UFO the cops saw that night was nothing like that. It was as large as a house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. A true UFO.

 

[paddoboy]

Nope..an unidentified object can't be an identified object at the same time. That's a logical contradiction.

You are obviously and painfully obfuscating again MR.....
If something is unidentified, then its exact 'reality' is open and anything is possible......

A helicopter at 300 ft above you is very loud and very unmistakeable. Everyone knows a helicopter when they see one. The UFO the cops saw that night was nothing like that. It was as large as a house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. A true UFO.

Nothing is really unmistakable; that's just more fabricated nonsense MR, to support what you secretly like to believe it is.
If this thing was as large as a house, elliptical shaped and made a gentle humming noise, I suggest it was either possibly an illusion, a delusion, some weird weather pattern, or simply the product of an unstable mind, but obviously remains as unidentified.

 

[James R]

LOL! You can cherry pick articles all day long from the web and post them, but that's not going to make all these compelling encounters I've posted here and other places go away.

You can randomly pick cruddy youtube videos all day long from the web and post them, but that won't make that requirement of reasonable evidence go away.

They happened. They're real. And saying they don't exist won't make a damn bit of difference. Ain't reality great? It stays there whether you believe in it or not.

What happened? Somebody saw a light in the sky and they didn't know what it was? Somebody told a tall tale? Ho hum.

No..I already told you the definition of UFO. It is an anomaly not identifiable as a known object or phenomena.

You're trying to re-define the term to suit yourself. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more. That is, it's an object that appears to fly, and we don't know for sure what it is. That's all.

If you want to talk about alien spacecraft or something, you ought to use that term instead. In that case, you're saying you've identified the object, like Bells said above. An unidentified flying object could just as well be the planet Venus or a helicopter, provided the person who saw it didn't identify it as such.

Therefore it is a UFO. Is it alien? We don't know. Could be.

Is it a helicopter? Could be.

Is it some unknown form of living energy? We don't know.

How many kinds of living energy are currently known? None. So, is there reason to think any such thing exists? No.

It could be. Is it humans time traveling from the future? We don't know. Could be.

Could it be magical pixies from the Magic Faraway Tree? We don't know. Could be. (Agree?)

What it is NOT is something known like a weather balloon or a helicopter or the planet Venus or any of the known shit you keep making up. It is NOT any of those because none of those fit the descriptions.

An unidentified light in the sky could fit any of those descriptions.

No..it is an unidentified flying object. A UFO. It cannot be a helicopter because that is a known object.

If somebody sees a helicopter's lights and doesn't realise they are helicopter lights, that's a UFO. There's a flying object, and they haven't identified it.

That's why when you go to a bookstore and pick up a book on UFOs you are not going to read about identified objects like helicopters, weather balloons, or the planet Venus. You are going to read about otherworldly unknown objects that exhibit typical traits and have been encountered thousands of times over the past 70 years.

That's because breathless fantasies about aliens sell better than reports of run-of-the-mill everyday sightings of helicopters.

There's a whole string of Star Wars movies, but not too many about making atmospheric measurements with weather balloons. Not in the popular cinema, at least.

I've been studying this field for 15 years now.

Studying? Is that what you call it? As far as I can see, there's not much study involved in mindlessly absorbing episode after episode of TV shows like Unexplained Mysteries or similar youtube productions.

You have no interest in studying any of these things, as you continually show here. As soon as somebody starts looking at any of your cases in detail, you're up an running away to the next thing as fast as your little legs can carry you.

Ufologists refer to ufos regularly. Never does it mean a known object. It is a mysterious unknown object that emits powerful energies, appears and disappears, is disc, triangular, oval or cylindrical shaped, outperforms manmade craft, morphs into different shapes, leaves emf burns on eyewitnesses, makes little to no noise, and leaves physical traces when it lands. That's what we know. They are NOT known objects or phenomena. Deal with it.

The problem is that the woo community can't agree among themselves about what all these UFOs are. It's up to the individual fanatasist involved. Some like aliens. Some like time travels. Some like interdimensional beings. Some no doubt like Pixies from Mars. But they'd much rather argue as a block with skeptics rather than squabble among themselves. So, they gloss over their differences, and let "UFO" be whatever each proponent of the woo wants it to be.

A helicopter at 300 ft above you is very loud and very unmistakeable.

Now that you mention it, one question I have about the police sighting you mentioned above is: how did they measure the altitude of the "UFO"? How did they measure its size? There are reports of both of those things, but my feeling is that they are just guesses, made without any reliable means of knowing if they were wrong or right.

How do you know if a helicopter is at 300 ft or 3000 ft, especially at night?

Everyone knows a helicopter when they see one.

Obviously this isn't the case. It doesn't take much imagination to realise that a helicopter may be very hard to identify as such at night, or against certain backgrounds, or high in the sky, for starters. And if the angle of view is different from what you expect, that might make it hard, too.

The UFO the cops saw that night was nothing like that.

Now that this has been mentioned, I'd say that the UFO they saw was quite like a helicopter. That's a definite possibility.

Where are those official records of flight plans from that night etc? Do you have them yet?

It was as large as a house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. A true UFO.

Who measured its size? How do you know it was as large as a house?

"Elliptical shaped" fits the description of many light sources seen from a distance, like the planet Venus, or the light on a plane or helicopter.

How did they hear the humming over the car engine noise?

 

[Magical Realist]

You can randomly pick cruddy youtube videos all day long from the web and post them, but that won't make that requirement of reasonable evidence go away.

Nothing cruddy about the videos at all. Clear images, well-narrated, and well documented.

What

happened? Somebody saw a light in the sky and they didn't know what it was? Somebody told a tall tale? Ho hum.

No..a ufo. You heard the accounts. It wasn't just a light in the sky.

You're trying to re-define the term to suit yourself. UFO = Unidentified Flying Object. Nothing more. That is, it's an object that appears to fly, and we don't know for sure what it is. That's all.

I'm not trying to "re-define" anything. I already quoted three sources, one from Wikipedia, confirming the accepted definition of UFO. And it isn't a known object or phenomena. Go back and read it again if you're confused.

If you want to talk about alien spacecraft or something, you ought to use that term instead. In that case, you're saying you've identified the object, like Bells said above. An unidentified flying object could just as well be the planet Venus or a helicopter, provided the person who saw it didn't identify it as such.

Nope..that's the definition given in Wikipedia. An anomaly that cannot be identified as any known object or phenomenon. Go back and read it again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object

Is it a helicopter? Could be.

Nope..it was as big as house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. Helicopter ruled out.

How many kinds of living energy are currently known? None. So, is there reason to think any such thing exists? No.

Is there a reason to think ufos exist and are a phenomena we haven't discovered yet? Absolutely..

Could it be magical pixies from the Magic Faraway Tree? We don't know. Could be. (Agree?)

If you believe that's a plausible explanation, go with it.

An unidentified light in the sky could fit any of those descriptions.

There's no such thing as just a light in the sky. Light has to land on something or be shown from a source to be seen. Plus it was as big as a house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise.

If somebody sees a helicopter's lights and doesn't realise they are helicopter lights, that's a UFO. There's a flying object, and they haven't identified it.

No..that's a helicopter. You just said it was. You identified it. That's not a ufo.

That's because breathless fantasies about aliens sell better than reports of run-of-the-mill everyday sightings of helicopters.

That's because ufos are not identified objects at all. These are all ruled out in every case.

There's a whole string of Star Wars movies, but not too many about making atmospheric measurements with weather balloons. Not in the popular cinema, at least.

Great. Go watch them. Maybe you'll learn something.

Studying? Is that what you call it? As far as I can see, there's not much study involved in mindlessly absorbing episode after episode of TV shows like Unexplained Mysteries or similar youtube productions.

Oh right..this is where we fall back into your conspiratorial little world of fake TV documentaries and youtube videos all being hoaxed. No thanks. Been there done that.

You have no interest in studying any of these things, as you continually show here. As soon as somebody starts looking at any of your cases in detail, you're up an running away to the next thing as fast as your little legs can carry you.

You haven't debunked a single case I've presented yet. All you offer are denials of authenticity and unevidenced maybes and what ifs. You call that studying the cases? I call it crude debunkery and denialism of the given facts.

The problem is that the woo community can't agree among themselves about what all these UFOs are. It's up to the individual fanatasist involved. Some like aliens. Some like time travels. Some like interdimensional beings. Some no doubt like Pixies from Mars. But they'd much rather argue as a block with skeptics rather than squabble among themselves. So, they gloss over their differences, and let "UFO" be whatever each proponent of the woo wants it to be.

Right..differing theories about what they are, but no disagreement that they are. Just like we have differing theories of the measurement problem or dark energy in physics.

Now that you mention it, one question I have about the police sighting you mentioned above is: how did they measure the altitude of the "UFO"? How did they measure its size? There are reports of both of those things, but my feeling is that they are just guesses, made without any reliable means of knowing if they were wrong or right.

People can't tell how big or high up an object in sky is now? lol! Wow..people must be idiots.

How do you know if a helicopter is at 300 ft or 3000 ft, especially at night?

It was shining a light on the ground. It also rose up from behind the trees and came right over them. That would give them a good estimate of its height.

Obviously this isn't the case. It doesn't take much imagination to realise that a helicopter may be very hard to identify as such at night, or against certain backgrounds, or high in the sky, for starters. And if the angle of view is different from what you expect, that might make it hard, too.

When it was initially sighted it was so bright it's structure couldn't be discerned. Then it got even brighter and illuminated the whole ground area. And it was making a gentle humming noise. That's not a helicopter. When a helicopter is hovering above you at 300 ft, you know it, believe me.

Now that this has been mentioned, I'd say that the UFO they saw was quite like a helicopter. That's a definite possibility.

Except it looked nothing like a helicopter, was as big as a house, was elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. Sorry, no helicopter.

Where are those official records of flight plans from that night etc? Do you have them yet?

Who cares. It wasn't anything like a manmade craft.

Who measured its size? How do you know it was as large as a house?

The eyewitnesses said so.

"Elliptical shaped" fits the description of many light sources seen from a distance, like the planet Venus, or the light on a plane or helicopter.

Right..elliptical planet Venus, or elliptical planes, or elliptical helicopters that all make a gentle humming noise. lol!

How did they hear the humming over the car engine noise?

Was the car running? I don't remember that part.

Here's more details from the cops that first saw the object:
=============================================================
“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up... to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. It started moving toward us...

As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car... and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light... I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.

"He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us.

The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum... like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes...

"I was petrified, and, uh, so I moved my right foot, and everything seemed to work all right. And evidently he made the same decision I did, to get something between me and it, or us and it, or whatever you would say. So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there..."

As they watched, the UFO moved toward the east, and then stopped again. Spaur picked up the microphone and reported to the dispatcher. At this time, the object was about 250 feet away, brilliantly lighting up the area ("It was very bright; it'd make your eyes water," Spaur said.)

Sergeant Schoenfelt, off duty at the station, told them to follow it and keep it under observation while they tried to get a photo unit to the scene.

Spear and Neff turned south on Route 183, then back east on Route 224, which placed the object to their right, and out the left window.

“At this time, said Spaur, "it came straight south, just one motion, buddy, just a smooth glide... and began moving east with them pacing it, just to their right at an estimated altitude of 300-500 feet, illuminating the ground beneath it. Once more the UFO darted to the north, now left of the car, and they sped up to over 100 mph to keep pace with it."

As the sky became brighter with predawn light, Spaur and Neff saw the UFO in silhouette, with a vertical projection at its rear. The object began to take on a metallic appearance as the chase continued."==http://www.ufocasebook.com/portage.html

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Can't debunk it so you mock it?

I'm mocking you for calling that "remarkable evidence". After all your time on this forum, it would be astounding if you turned out to be as stupid as you pretend to be. I don't think you are that stupid. I think you know this kind of stuff is worthless rubbish. But you're angry that people don't automatically want to share your fantasy world.

Think I'll believe their story over yours James.

Whose story? We don't even know if there were real people involved, or if this is just fiction.

You weren't there afterall.

I don't think you were either. If anything actually even happened.

And three geologists out working in the outback certainly have no agenda to push like you do.

Which three geologists? Can we contact them to ask them whether they have an agenda to push? No. Why not? Oh yes, names have been withheld. Or they don't exist. One of the two.

Nothing cruddy about the videos at all. Clear images, well-narrated, and well documented.

UFO photos and videos are typically cruddy. You know this.

No..a ufo. You heard the accounts. It wasn't just a light in the sky.

I agree it was a UFO. It is unidentified. Could have been Venus, maybe, or a helicopter, or pixies from Mars. No way to tell which it was, given the information presented so far.

Nope..it was as big as house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. Helicopter ruled out.

We only have the words of a few people to back up any of that. Nothing more.

Helicopter can't be ruled out yet.

There's no such thing as just a light in the sky. Light has to land on something or be shown from a source to be seen. Plus it was as big as a house, elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise.

I agree that lights in the sky usually have sources. The planet Venus and lights on helicopters are two sources, for example.

How did somebody determine that this thing was as big as a house?
How did they hear the gentle humming over the car engine noise?

No..that's a helicopter. You just said it was. You identified it. That's not a ufo.

Until it's identified as a helicopter, it's a UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. See?

That's because ufos are not identified objects at all.

I agree. Unidentified flying object. Not alien spaceship, for example. Not interdimensional beings. Those would be identified, like you say.

Oh right..this is where we fall back into your conspiratorial little world of fake TV documentaries and youtube videos all being hoaxed. No thanks. Been there done that.

I was querying your notion of what "study" involves, that's all. But now that you mention it, there is a whole lot of faked UFO footage out there. Isn't there?

You haven't debunked a single case I've presented yet.

Right. And you haven't made a good case for any single case you've presented being aliens or interdimensional beings, or indeed anything out of the ordinary, yet.

All you offer are denials of authenticity and unevidenced maybes and what ifs. You call that studying the cases? I call it crude debunkery and denialism of the given facts.

I've raised some sensible questions that you never bothered asking yourself. I've tried to teach you how to think rationally about these things rather than with the empty-minded credulity you typically display. Not that the message has had any impact, apparently. But maybe some other readers have had there eyes opened.

Right..differing theories about what they are, but no disagreement that they are. Just like we have differing theories of the measurement problem or dark energy in physics.

That's a fair point.

People can't tell how big or high up an object in sky is now? lol! Wow..people must be idiots.

Explain to me how you typically determine the height of an airplane flying overhead. Explain how you do it during the day, and at night time when it is dark.

Also: to what accuracy can you determine the altitude of an aircraft merely by looking at it flying overhead? 1000 feet? 100 feet? 10 feet?

Also: tell me how you judge the size of the aircraft, and to what accuracy you are able to do that as it flies overhead.

A step-by-step explanation of your method would be useful.

I assume I must be an idiot in this regard, and I hope you can teach me how to do it just like you can.

It was shining a light on the ground. That would give them a good estimate of its height.

How? Please outline how that method would work.

When it was initially sighted it was so bright it's structure couldn't be discerned. Then it got even brighter and illuminated the whole ground area. And it was making a gentle humming noise. That's not a helicopter. When a helicopter is hovering above you at 300 ft, you know it, believe me.

Maybe the helicopter swung its searchlight around so it was shining on the policemen.

Except it looked nothing like a helicopter, was as big as a house, was elliptical shaped, and made a gentle humming noise. Sorry, no helicopter.

I've seen two eyewitness drawings. One looks a bit like a helicopter with attached bright light. The other looks just like the blur of a light. So, possibly a helicopter, but uncertain.

Who cares. It wasn't anything like a manmade craft.

Not anything like one, eh?

I asked for the flight plans previously because the policemen reported seeing manmade aircraft as well as the UFO. I am wondering what the people in those manmade aircraft saw.

Also it would help to eliminate manmade craft definitively by examining the flight plans of the manmade aircraft that were in the area that night. Don't you think? Or are you not interested in gaining actual reliable data on that?

The eyewitnesses said so.

How did the eyewitnesses measure the size and height of the object? Did they use your method, or did they do it some other way?

Right..elliptical planet Venus, or elliptical planes, or elliptical helicopters that all make a gentle humming noise. lol!

Obviously, atmospheric effects can sometimes make circular sources appear elliptical.

What was the weather like that night?

Was the car running? I don't remember that part.

They chased the UFO in the car. There may have been times when there was no car running. Have you checked the conditions under which the "gentle humming" was heard?

 

[Magical Realist]

Here's more details from the cops that first saw the object:
=============================================================
“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up... to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. It started moving toward us...

As it came over the trees, I looked at Barney and he was still watching the car... and he didn't say nothing and the thing kept getting brighter and the area started to get light... I told him to look over his shoulder, and he did.

"He just stood there with his mouth open for a minute, as bright as it was, and he looked down. And I started looking down and I looked at my hands and my clothes weren't burning or anything, when it stopped right over on top of us.

The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum... like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes...

"I was petrified, and, uh, so I moved my right foot, and everything seemed to work all right. And evidently he made the same decision I did, to get something between me and it, or us and it, or whatever you would say. So we both went for the car, we got in the car and we sat there..."

As they watched, the UFO moved toward the east, and then stopped again. Spaur picked up the microphone and reported to the dispatcher. At this time, the object was about 250 feet away, brilliantly lighting up the area ("It was very bright; it'd make your eyes water," Spaur said.)

Sergeant Schoenfelt, off duty at the station, told them to follow it and keep it under observation while they tried to get a photo unit to the scene.

Spear and Neff turned south on Route 183, then back east on Route 224, which placed the object to their right, and out the left window.

“At this time, said Spaur, "it came straight south, just one motion, buddy, just a smooth glide... and began moving east with them pacing it, just to their right at an estimated altitude of 300-500 feet, illuminating the ground beneath it. Once more the UFO darted to the north, now left of the car, and they sped up to over 100 mph to keep pace with it."

As the sky became brighter with predawn light, Spaur and Neff saw the UFO in silhouette, with a vertical projection at its rear. The object began to take on a metallic appearance as the chase continued."==http://www.ufocasebook.com/portage.html
==============================================================
All your questions about the size of the object and it's height are answered here. They saw it hovering at treetop level. About 100 ft. Immediate size comparison there. It came right over them. Good estimate of height there. You don't think you'd be able to tell the size and height of an object like this under these circumstances? I think anyone could, and especially trained police officers. And notice the humming was like an overloaded transformer. Very distinctive sound if you've ever heard one, suggesting intense electrical power.

Here's one of the photos of the object that was taken:

I'm mocking you for calling that "remarkable evidence". After all your time on this forum, it would be astounding if you turned out to be as stupid as you pretend to be. I don't think you are that stupid. I think you know this kind of stuff is worthless rubbish. But you're angry that people don't automatically want to share your fantasy world.

I've only provided compelling evidence here derived from credible sources. There's nothing to be stupid about here. It's there for anybody to honestly examine and study for themselves who isn't pushing some ridiculously desperate debunking agenda. A hundred times over. Case by amazing case, Don't worry about my IQ. Don't worry about your own IQ. This doesn't require alot of thinking. You just review the evidence for yourself and be honest with yourself and come to a decision---that ufos are real and are an as yet unidentified phenomena haunting our skies for decades and perhaps centuries now. That's all it is. Like all the other unexplained phenomena I've posted about in this thread. It just is what it is. And the sun will still rise tomorrow. And science will still be science. I promise.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Here's more details from the cops that first saw the object:

This is from the same witness statements you linked earlier, isn't it?

“I always look behind me so no one can come up behind me. And when I looked in this wooded area behind us, I saw this thing. At this time it was coming up... to about tree top level. I'd say about one hundred feet. It started moving toward us...

So, as far as height goes, all we know from this is that something was seen above the tree-top level. Anything from there up to Venus is possible.

The only thing, the only sound in the whole area was a hum... like a transformer being loaded or an overloaded transformer when it changes...

How many witnesses reported the hum? Just one, or more?

As they watched, the UFO moved toward the east, and then stopped again. Spaur picked up the microphone and reported to the dispatcher. At this time, the object was about 250 feet away, brilliantly lighting up the area ("It was very bright; it'd make your eyes water," Spaur said.)

The distance to the object presumably wasn't measured. That 250 feet is at best an estimate from the light it was supposedly casting on the ground, I assume. Would that be correct?

Sergeant Schoenfelt, off duty at the station, told them to follow it and keep it under observation while they tried to get a photo unit to the scene.

Did they get a photo unit to the scene?

Spear and Neff turned south on Route 183, then back east on Route 224, which placed the object to their right, and out the left window.

I'm having trouble picturing this. Them going south puts the object on their right. Then they turn east, and now the object is to their left. Are they driving away from the object at this point? Or did it move and cross the road? Or what?

“At this time, said Spaur, "it came straight south, just one motion, buddy, just a smooth glide... and began moving east with them pacing it, just to their right at an estimated altitude of 300-500 feet, illuminating the ground beneath it. Once more the UFO darted to the north, now left of the car, and they sped up to over 100 mph to keep pace with it."

So now they're driving east, with the object initially on their left, as described above. And it's "pacing them". But it's now pacing them on the right. How does that work?

And then it moves north (i.e. to their left), and now they describe it as on the left. Did it cross the road? If so, why didn't they mention that?

As the sky became brighter with predawn light, Spaur and Neff saw the UFO in silhouette, with a vertical projection at its rear.

Yes, and one of those guys drew the sketch, right?

All your questions about the size of the object and it's height are answered here. They saw it hovering at treetop level. About 100 ft.

There's no mention of hovering. The witness says it rose up, presumably from behind some trees. Actually it's not clear if the thing was above all the trees when they saw it, or whether there were trees in the "background" so that it was below the tree-top level. It would be useful to sort that out.

Oh wait... it says it "came over the trees". So, it was above the tree-tops, then. Would be interesting to know if they ever saw it with trees or other terrain behind the "object", or whether they only saw it against the sky.

Immediate size comparison there.

So, it judged to be house-sized object, in comparison to the heights of distant trees? Is that what you're saying?

Which witness said it was house-sized, by the way?

It came right over them. Good estimate of height there.

Not really. It's difficult to judge by eye the height of an object seen from directly below - especially one whose absolute size is unknown.

By the way, you forgot to tell me your method for judging the heights and sizes of conventional aircraft in the sky.

And notice the humming was like an overloaded transformer. Very distinctive sound if you've ever heard one, suggesting intense electrical power.

So, not an unidentified object then? An electrical object, you claim.

Here's one of the photos of the object that was taken:

Interesting. This is new. As usual, it's pretty cruddy.

Who took this photo?
Where were they when it was taken?
Is that a police car at the bottom of the photo?
What time was this taken? Is that the sun on the left?
What's that darker triangle below the ellipse? Why is is darker than the background?

Now, looking at this photo, the first thing I notice is that it doesn't match the sketch that was done by the police officer, or the description given. Not very well, at least. Where's the ice-cream cone shape? Where's the irregularity on top? Where's the bit that sticks up on top in the sketch?

And has anybody examined the negatives of this photo and checked for authenticity?

Is there only one photo? If so, why?

I've only provided compelling evidence here derived from credible sources.

I can't verify the sources of this particular UFO report, and neither can you, presumably. Provisionally, I am willing to accept that these were real policemen and the witness statements are real, but a proper investigation would investigate that, of course.

There's nothing to be stupid about here.

I was referring to your outback UFO sighting by the fictional geologists, not the police one. That anecdote in no way constitutes "remarkable" evidence. Remarkable that it's so shoddy, perhaps.

It's there for anybody to honestly examine and study for themselves who isn't pushing some ridiculously desperate debunking agenda.

Yeah. Me. I'll look at whatever you've got on the police car sighting. Got anything else? Not third-hand youtube re-hashes of the same primary evidence, you understand. I mean any other evidence collected at the time in the form of documents, photos, statements, reports, that kind of thing.

A hundred times over. Case by amazing case, Don't worry about my IQ. Don't worry about your own IQ. This doesn't require alot of thinking. You just review the evidence for yourself and be honest with yourself and come to a decision---that ufos are real and are an as yet unidentified phenomena haunting our skies for decades and perhaps centuries now.

I accept that some people see things in the sky that they can't identify. So, UFOs are real in that sense.

As for strange "phenomena" or "haunting the skies", that's just fantasy added on.

Got any evidence of alien spaceships or time travellers from the future, or pixies from Mars?

 

[James R]

Comparison:

Quite different, aren't they?

 

[Magical Realist]

LOL. Seriously? Who took the photo? Where was he when he took it? What time was it? What was his blood type? Did he have eggs for breakfast or pancakes? Endless bullshit questions you make up to distract from the compelling account itself. You have the eyewitness account. You have the documentation. You even have a photo now. It wasn't Venus. It wasn't a helicopter. It wasn't a satellite. It was a real UFO. Moving on to the next one.

 

[James R]

LOL. Seriously? Who took the photo? Where was he when he took it? What time was it? What was his blood type? Did he have eggs for breakfast or pancakes? Endless bullshit questions you make up to distract from the compelling account itself.

Earlier, you linked me to a collection that contained the witness statements etc. But now you've posted a photo, and I can't even tell whether it is related to the same case. None of the questions I asked about it are unreasonable. And what do you think about the side-by-side comparison with the witness's sketch?

You have the eyewitness account. You have the documentation. You even have a photo now. It wasn't Venus. It wasn't a helicopter. It wasn't a satellite. It was a real UFO. Moving on to the next one.

Moving on to the next one. How unusual for you. As soon as somebody starts to examine any of these things in detail, you trun around and run away. Are you worried I'll turn up some evidence of fakery, perhaps? Or is the mere fact that I ask reasonable questions too thought-provoking for you to handle?

Also, don't think I didn't notice that you ignored most of my detailed post in your last response. I assume that's because you have no adequate answers, and/or don't want to put in any effort.

 

[James R]

Here's another famous and well documented UFO encounter--the Coyne Helicopter incident in Mansfield Ohio in 1973.

I'll get to this bait-and-switch later, if I feel like it.

So, I take it you're done with the police UFO chase? That's all you have on that?

 

[Magical Realist]

I'll get to this bait-and-switch later, if I feel like it.

So, I take it you're done with the police UFO chase? That's all you have on that?

You couldn't debunk anything about it. It stands as compelling evidence of ufos.

As soon as somebody starts to examine any of these things in detail, you trun around and run away. Are you worried I'll turn up some evidence of fakery, perhaps? Or is the mere fact that I ask reasonable questions too thought-provoking for you to handle?

I gave you well documented accounts of the incident and a photo. You couldn't debunk anything about them. How long am I supposed to wait? I will always move on when you equate asking irrelevant questions about a case to making that case questionable. What's wrong? Don't like to admit there are numerous examples of ufo contact? Too bad. I will continue posting case after convincing case. I don't care if you bitch about it or not. You pretty much do that no matter what I do.

 

[James R]

You couldn't debunk anything about it. It stands as compelling evidence of ufos.

The information provided is so sketchy and incomplete that it's impossible for me to investigate it properly. Same goes for you, too, but you're not interesting in investigating it, are you? You just want to believe.

I gave you well documented accounts of the incident and a photo. You couldn't debunk anything about them.

I don't even know if the photo is from the same incident, yet. Have barely begun to consider whether it might be faked. And, if it's not from the same incident then it's irrelevant.

As for the documentation, there's only witness statements and not much else. Have you found the extensive report that is referenced in the material you linked to? I'd like to read that.

How long am I supposed to wait?

You claim to have compelling evidence. Why don't you produce any of it? I'm waiting for you to come up with the goods you claim to have.

I will always move on when you equate asking irrelevant questions about a case to making that case questionable.

Nothing I have asked in my analysis above is irrelevant. I have only asked reasonable questions to test the evidence that you have presented.

The fact that you can't or won't answer any of my questions is quite telling about the strength of your evidence, wouldn't you agree? If it was really as strong and "compelling" as you claim, you'd have no trouble clearing up any doubts I might have about it.

What's wrong? Don't like to admit there are numerous examples of ufo contact?

Happy to admit that. Have done so several times, even in this thread.

Pity there's no evidence of any alien or paranormal activity anywhere.

Too bad. I will continue posting case after convincing case.

One hundred unconvincing anecdotes are no better than one.

Why don't you just post one actually-convincing one, and save yourself a lot of useless effort? If you have one, that is. Mind you, if you're going to do that it would be good if you could undertake in advance to follow through the discussion to its conclusion, rather than jumping off onto something else the minute your case starts collapsing, as you usually do.

 

[Magical Realist]

Why don't you just post one actually-convincing one

LOL! I've posted dozens of convincing cases which you couldn't debunk. Bitching about them won't work either. They are solid well-documented accounts that cannot be denied. Deal with it.

 

[James R]

LOL! I've posted dozens of convincing cases which you couldn't debunk.

No. Most of the cases you've posted have consisted of nothing but a single youtube video. Without more, there's simply no way to investigate the cases properly. You ought to realise that, but you don't, and in fact are not interested in investigating things. You just want to believe.

Bitching about them won't work either.

Asking sensible questions is not "bitching", although to somebody as credulous as you want us to believe you are, it's not a surprise that you feel attacked when somebody asks inconvenient questions that threaten to undermine your faith.

They are solid well-documented accounts that cannot be denied. Deal with it.

Show me the documentation!

You can start with the police chase case we started talking about above.

While you're at it, please answer the reasonable questions I've raised regarding that case.